JUN 09 LIBRARIESI THE 4-DIMENSIONAL MASONRY CONSTRUCTION

advertisement
THE 4-DIMENSIONAL MASONRY CONSTRUCTION
by Lara K.Davis
B.F.A. Installation art, 2001
New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University, School of Art &Design
LIBRARIESI
Master of Architecture at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ARCHIVES
June 2010
D2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved.
Signature of Author:
of Architecture
Certified by:
hD
John A.Ochse
AssociafProfessor of Building Technology
71A A ....- f-hesis Supervisor
Certified by:
Nader Tehrani
Professor of Architecture, Department Head
. Thesis S.upervis r
Ap b
NOGY
JUN 09 2010
Submitted to the Department of Architecture
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Accepted by:
OFSECH
Julian Beinart
Professor of Architecture
Chair of the Department Committee on Graduate Students
John A.Ochsendorf, PhD
Associate Professor of Building Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thesis Supervisor
Nader Tehrani
Professor of Architecture, Department Head
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thesis Supervisor
Mark Jarzombek, PhD
Professor of the History and Theory of Architecture
Associate Dean, School of Architecture and Planning
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thesis Reader
2
THE 4-DIMENSIONAL
MASONRY CONSTRUCTION
Lara K.Davis
Submitted to the Department of Architecture
on May 21, 2010
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Architecture
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thesis Supervisor:
John A.Ochsendorf, PhD
Title: Associate Professor of Building Technology
Thesis Supervisor:
Nader Tehrani
Title: Professor of Architecture, Department Head
Abstract
This design-research thesis - The 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction presents innovation in the design and construction of thin-shell tile vaulted
structures.
The core research contributions of this thesis are:
#1 Testing limit states of unit hinging + displacement in single-layer tile vaults.
#2 Introducing modified masonry units to achieve directional surfaces with
high degrees of double-curvature and porosity.
The 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction operates as a heuristic device to
conceptualize, visualize and represent the way in which a masonry unit hinges
in space within a complex, doubly-curved structural surface.
By modifying masonry units, the resulting system of aggregation can produce
asymmetrical and disaggregating tile coursing geometries - predictable yet
geometrically incomprehensible systems.
By establishing reciprocity between the modified unit/ system relation and the
method of vault assembly, new forms in structural masonry are possible. Such
structural forms are a product of these unique unit/ system geometries, the
constraint of structural geometries (catenary systems and double curvature for
lateral stiffness), the techniques of graphical analysis to define such a structure
spatially, and the logic of sequencing to maintain the units'systematic relation,
to constrain units inherently given to push the limits of constructibility.
Keywords: design-research, structural masonry, construction
Again, it sometimes appears to be thought that the fourth dimensions isin some way different from the three dimensions
which we know. But there isnothing mysterious at all about it. It isjust an ordinary dimension tilted up in some way, which
with our bodily organs we cannot point to. But if it isbent down, it will be just like any ordinary dimension: a line which went
up into the fourth dimension one inch will, when bent down, lie an inch in any known direction we like to point out. Only if
this line in the fourth dimension be supposed to be connected rigidly with any rigid body, one of the directions in that rigid
body must pointawayin the fourth dimension when the line that was in the fourth dimension comes into a 3space direction."
- Charles Howard Hinton, APicture of Our Universe, 1886.
Apart from the interest of speculations of this kind they have considerable value; for they enable us to express in intelligible
terms things of which we can form no image. They supply us, as it were, with scaffolding, which the mind can make use of in
building up its conceptions. And the additional gain to our power of representation isvery great.
- Charles Howard Hinton, What isthe Fourth Dimension, 1886.
Master's Thesis | Lara K.Davis I Spring 2010
THE 4-D MENS ONAL
MASONRY CONSTRUCT ON
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
First and foremost,I would like to express my tremendous gratitude to my thesis advisory committee, co-advisors Professor John Ochsendorf and Nader
Tehrani, and reader Mark Jarzombek. I believe quite honestly that these three have comprised acommittee of the highest degree - across the terrains
ofstructural engineering, design and history/ theory - that I have seen in my time at MIT. John, most ofall, has provided me with opportunities beyond
my expectations and has assisted me a very great deal in the realization of my work. For the first inertia in the formulation of this thesis, the scholar
Yonca Hurol at Eastern Mediterranean University in Cyprus was especially supportive, and I would like to consider her as my honorary and silent reader.
For their role in the Cooper-Hewitt vault design and construction, I am indebted to John Ochsendorf and the MIT Masonry Research Group, our
installation crew at the Cooper-Hewitt, and project manager Mallory Taub. I am also grateful to Cooper-Hewitt production manager Matt O'Connor
and his staff, especially Kevin and Roy. James Kolodziey, Mr. Charles Taylor, and Steve Blankenbeker have contributed enormous time, support, and
clay science research knowledge, in addition to the donation of their stunning '****'-bricks. I hope to return their contribution ten-fold.
Iam thankful for the generous support of the Marvin E.Goody scholarship, selection committee, and recommenders John Ochsendorfand Larry Sass.
Iowe my gratitude to the following individuals: Philippe Block, who allowed me generously to re-build amodel, for which the pieces are ever shifting
into place. Michael Ramage, for his many advices - in whose 'footings' I follow! The Terrescope group, whose low-carbon research and creative
initiative was inspiring and informative. Jim Harrington for his support and trust in allowing me to build my thesis vault prototype. Duncan Kincaid,
for printing support and the most wickedly sharp humor and intellect in the most stressful of final production moments. Thesis helpers Mallory Taub,
Samar Malek, Runo Okiomah, Alex Atwood, MarissaGrace Desmond, and Marissa Cheng - without the support of these people, the final presentation
would have been ashadow of what it was. The ghosts, invisible laborers, and the greatest critics without whom this also would not have come to pass
- at least, in any case, not without the meaning it now has. Mark Goulthorpe, for refusing to accept my limitations.
These years have been ones in which only the greatest and most challenging travels within have been the path through which - to draw. My deepest
gratitude goes to Mary Fillman, Larry Sass, Monique Buzzarti, Deneene Whitehead and Pamela Hawkins, for their unending support, friendship and
perspective. I must thank more than all my family, Barbara, Wayne, Shana and Sara, especially my Mom; without their faith in me, I would surely not
have made it through. The strength from the continuity in my family's work - especially quilter Grandma Elizabeth Baird and geologist Papa Baird has been enduring. And Sara, who has watched me lay every brick, disassemble every wall, and still build again - masonry and biology, Ras. Last, to
Ak-bak, who carried me all the way here and through, and Mallory, who saw that I finish it - I could not have done this without you.
LKD
May2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
..................----......--....--.----------.------------------------.--..--------------------- .
1. Intro duction
...............................................................................................................
1. Thesis, Research &Methodology statements
2. Be nc hm a rks ................................................................................................................................................................
............... . --...................
2.1 Economy of Form ....... ...........................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
ate
rial
o
f
M
2.2 Eco nomy
3. Platforms for masonry innovation ................................................................................................................................
3.1 System/ Unit Logic (Systems Aggregation) ......................................................................................................
..............................................
3.2 Method of Assembly (4-Dimensional Drawing)
. Co nstru ctio n Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................................
Il. Applied Research: Innovation from Construction .........................................................................
IV. Design-Research Synthesis: 4 Dimensional Constructional Design
.....................
....................
V.Ap p e nd x ................................................................................................................................................
.......................
......
......
..................
......
7. BLOG Discourse: 4D Masonry Construction (selected)
.......
.
.....................................
(selected)
Group
Research
Masonry
MIT
Discourse:
8. BLOG
.
-..............................................
.......................
.. ............................
9. Materials research ..................................
...................................
....... ..........
9.1 Green Thin-Brick: Sustainable brick technologies and materials
.................................................................................................
9.2 Morta r testin g ..............................................
10 . MITFa cilities su bmissio n ..............................................................................................................................................
11. Marvin E.Goody pri ze statement .................................................................................................................................
VI. Bibliography ................................................................................-.................-------...
--------......
VII. Illu stratio n Cre dits ...........................................................................................................................-.-.-.-.-
----........................................
. .....--- -- - -- - -- - ............
11
12
15
16
18
21
22
24
27
41
49
79
81
97
11 3
114
118
12 2
128
132
134
0
0
0
0
=
CONTRBUTONS
#1
TESTING LIMIT STATES OF HINGING + ROTATION
INSINGLE LAYER TILE VAULTS
#2
INTRODUCING MODIFIED MASONRY UNITS
TO ACHIEVE A DIRECTIONAL SURFACE WITH
HIGH DEGREES OF DOUBLE-CURVATURE AND POROSITY
SPATIAL DRAWING TOOLS:
CHAIN
MASON'S LINE
CINTREL
PLUMB
LEVEL
LINE LEVEL
TEMPLATE
COMPASS
ANGLE
RULE
DISTANCE
FROMCENTER
MINIMUM FORMWORK STRUCTURE
CONSTRUCTION
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
DESIGN
-- TA. CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
B. ABSTRACTION OF RULES
(RECONCILIATION OF PATTERN GEOMETRY
AND STRUCTURAL GEOMETRY)
C. REAPPLICATION OF RULES
The 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction is a heuristic device to
conceptualize, visualize and represent the way in which a masonry
unit hinges in space within a complex, doubly-curved surface.
Such isthe mental construction of the mason for predictable and controlled
geometries; however, this technique may also be applied to predictable but
geometrically incomprehensible systems.
The skills of the mason may be qualified as 4-dimensional insofar as they
are time-based constructional logics. The act of construction in masonry
requires an assessment of error in time as masonry units are laid. The mason
must'see the surface'as it isdeployed and anticipate its behavior to correct
imminent errors in coursing pattern and in-situ structural stability. Both of
these categories of error are critical and unique to masonry construction,
since masonry structures are unstable until fully completed, and unit
masonry must be corrected for error continually throughout construction
to keep many small errors from cascading. The use of registration lines and
formwork are the drawn spatial lines which must serve as guides for the
reciprocal relationship between masonry unit and masonry system.
Through an analytical approach to the learned skills of the mason,
constructional logics may be identified and re-synthesized towards
innovative design logics, flipping the valence of a synthetic space-sense
and logic of error correction into a methodology for design. While a
construction produced by the mason's methods may already be considered
as a 4-dimensional drawing - or construction as an act of spatial drawing
in time - the very lines and rules which define good craftsmanship may be
transgressed to draw - thus to build - an apparently impossible structure.
U
0
0~
#1
ECONOMY (OF [FORM
PRECEDENTS IN MASONRY INNOVATION
ECONOMY
SINGLE SHELL
0
DOUBLE SHELL
O
LATERAL UNDULATION
PENDENTIVE / CORBELLING
NO FORM (HOOP FORCES)
-
MODULULAR REUSE
MINIMUM TEMPLATE FORM
MINIMUM STRING FORM
MINIMAL CUSTOM CUTTING
MODULAR UNIT SIZE
Dieste, Cadyl Horizontal Silo.
This research in structural masonry rests firmly on the foundations of modern innovation in the area of thin-shell structural form. Early and
mid- 20th century architect-engineer-builders such as Antoni Gaudi, Rafael Guastavino, Eladio Dieste and Felix Candela have demonstrated
the tremendous invention possible in thin-shell vault construction through the use of catenary structural principles. It isby working within the
very tight constraints of structural form-finding that these architects have pioneered the field of contemporary structural thin-shell innovation,
but just as importantly, pioneered critical practices of material economy. These so-called'minimum material forms' are likewise the product
of a long history of discovery in the structural behavior of masonry. It is by utilizing these dual design-goals - structural efficiency and formal
innovation - that the thesis proposes to make its case.
It is additionally important to note that innovation such as this would not have been possible without the aid of the structural drawing
techniques of graphical analysis. Such drawing techniques served, however, not only as the tool for structural form-finding, but also as a
comprehensive methodology in coordinating constructional logics. The graphical funicular drawing - which translates between engineering
constraints and masonry form - can be conceived of beyond the two dimensions of the traditional design drawing, to be translated directly
into the constructional rules for generating a masonry surface, formwork strategy, and thus a sequenced, 4-dimensional construction strategy.
Col6nia G5ell,Barcelona
ANTONI GAUDi
F
ELADIO DIESTE
/
''I
FELIX CANDELA
7
Y
RAFAEL GUASTAVINO
IN
#2 ECONOMY O0F MATEMlAL
RECONSTfTUTED RESOURCES :RADDCALZNG ECONOMY WGTH WASTE FLOWS
GREEN LEAF BROCKS
100 % RECYCLED
TYPICAL INDUSTRIALLY PRODUCED BRICK
0m
a>
-
-
G)
0
0z
0
0
This thesis proposes to radicalize concerns of'economy of form'by subverting the linear structure of material consumption. The masonry unit
will not be taken as given in either form or material, but rather considered as aunit which inflects abroader system of aggregation and a resource
which inflects a broader system of material consumption and reuse. By taking on the time-based, 4-dimensional perhaps, considerations
of industrial brick production - with its association to a'cradle to gate' economy - the thesis proposes an alternative material economy by
tapping material waste flows. Current paradigms of'cradle to cradle'design often elevate the post-consumer'item'to the status of aggregation
- ie. bottles, cups, and tires stacked systematically to generate a composite masonry system. The most critical outcome of this one-to-one
translation is the notion that material properties impact the structural behavior of the system, that trash performs somehow differently than
virgin resources by virtue of its'used'or'weakened'state. If this same critia of judgment, however, isapplied to research at the level of material
science - in this case, clay brick production - then re-constituted waste materials may be assessed for their performance in the production of
a re-constituted brick. The brick material which was used in the vault construction at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum as well as in the final thesis
construction, Green Leaf Brick, isa 100% post-consumer and post-industrial recycled product, composed of approximately 30% processed
sewage wastes. The material science which went into the engineering of this brick well demonstrates the argument of radical material economy
put forth by the thesis, insofar as the clay-body of the Green Leaf brick produces a more structurally robust brick through its consideration of
material behavior. In other words, this brick is not simply radical because it is made of 30% shit - but radical because the processed sewage
waste, when used in combination with other recycled materials, has a material performance which rivals the best brick in the industry.
GREEN LEAF BRICK
30%
RECYCLED CONTENT:
EFFECT ON CLAY BODY:
PROCESSED SEWAGE WASTES
GLASSIFYING
RECYCLED IRON OXIDES
MINERAL TAILINGS
OPEN PIT MINING BY-PRODUCTS
CLAY-BODY PLASTICITY
INDUSTRIAL STARCHES
INCREASED COMP. STRENGTH
VIRGIN CERAMIC SCRAP
GROG: RAPID DRYING/ FIRING
GLASS
GLASSIFYING
PLANT REFUSE (ORGANICS)
INCREASED PLASTICITY
DUST FROM AIR FILTRATION UNITS
PURE SILICA
MISC. LANDFILL CERAMICS
(IE. CERAMIC TOILETS)
GROG: RAPID DRYING/ FIRING
Sugeusan.HanoverIavow
AGGREGATED REFUSE
4ft
RuralStudio.
Yancey
Chapel
C
PLATFORMS FOR NNOVATlO1
21
SYSTEM
( 4D
SYSTEM DETERIORATION
/ UNiT LOG[C
SYSTEM TENDENCIES
SYSTEM / UNIT RELATION
T
MZ
p
x
z
0
z
G)
-I
m
aft
AGGREGATIVE SYSTEMS::
THRESHOLDS OF HINGING INTHIN-SHELL MASONRY
The 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction takes the position that
constructional logics learned through the act of construction
- specifically with respect to unit/ system relationships and
hinging in thin-shell masonry structures - may be abstracted,
synthesized and applied towards the design of innovative
masonry structures.
The precedents for this investigation of limit-states in masonry
aggregation - largely computational, as in the work of Gramazio
and Kohler - all address corbelled units and not hinging between
units. Additionally, such work also typically fails to generate a
synthetic strategy for structural limits or constructional criteria.
The greatest departure of this thesis from the methods of
contemporary, computational masonry innovation isthat logics
of the hand are being reconciled towards design objectives a strategy which is perhaps uncommon in a contemporary
context fascinated with computational geometry, yet which
lacks sufficient parameters for effective translation into material
form.
The time-based act of construction may inform a series of
constructional logics and constraints, which may then be
abstracted and re-applied. Material, tectonic, human, structural
and sequential errors - the natural tendencies of masonry
aggregation towards a state of dis-aggregation, which can
be learned only through direct knowledge in constructional
testing - may be utilized as tools towards new paradigms of
masonry design. These constructional logics can then enable
masonry design at the very limit-state of what is possible for
masonry - creating an apparently impossible structure, which
nevertheless isdetermined by critical rules.
EXTRUSION
DISPLACEMENT
SCULPTING
0
EXTENSION
INTERSECTION
CROPPING
wL
4-DMENSONAL DRAWNG
THE SPATIAL MASONRY DRAWING, DEPLOYED IN TIME
ROTATION
REVETMENT
DEVELOPMENT
"Stereotomy was at the very edge of architecture. It was also at
the edge of mathematical geometry, at the edge of technical
drawing, of structural theory, practical masonry, and military
engineering."
- Robin Evans, The Projective Cast, p. 179
CUSTOMIZATION &AGGREGATION:
BEHAVIOR OF THE MASONRY UNIT
AGGREGATION
STONE
MASONRY
HYBRIDIZED
MODIFIED BRICK
BRICK
MASONRY
VARIABLE UNIT
MODIFIED / FIXED UNIT
FIXED UNIT
STEREOTOMY
TILE PATTERNING
Vo
All of these precedents involve what might be called
"construction as an act of spatial drawing"- or4-dimensional
drawing. Through the use of spatial drawing tools for
masonry - such as the chain, mason's line, plumb, level, linelevel, template (paper or wood trait), compass or dividers,
rule, angle, and cintrel - a comprehensive system is put
in place for constructibility, critical sequencing, accurate
projection from 2-dimensional drawing to 3-dimensional
space, and registration for complex unit/ system relations
(or masonry systems with non-uniform units).
Such non-uniform units and the associated systems of
translational, 4-dimensional drawing are typified by stone
stereotomy. It may be conceptualized as 4-dimensional
insofar as the construction of the stereometric trait
involves the temporal operative of rotation, revetment and
development. In one drawing, the procedural translation
is legible: one two-dimensional drawing becomes
descriptive and technically enables a translation into an
incomprehensible spatial geometry. (For further discussion,
see Robin Evans' "The Projective Cast", particularly the
chapter entitled"Drawn Stone")
Nevertheless, no such precedents of this 4-dimensional
drawing pertain to brick masonry, typically a system
comprised of uniform units. This thesis investigates the redesign of the brick unit itself, introducing simple modified
brick units and ahybridized form of stereotomy for industrial
production. By reinserting concerns of construction
sequence (already critical in the construction of masonry
structures), the brick unit and its system of registration
can be re-considered in a4-dimensional translation, which
enables geometrical, structural and surface aspect qualities
not previously possible in brick.
L
SD
0DsA~iV
'
~ULJ%
Afl
MMSACHU
"SON" REARQ4
GROUP
jMTA4RQ
4D CONSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS
THE COOPER-HEWITT PROTOTYPE, January 2010
EXTRACTING CONSTRUCTIONAL RULES:
FORM-MAKING
RULES OF FORM
MASONRY UNIT
CONSTRAINTS
STRUCTURAL FORM
CONSTRAINTS
RULES OF SEQUENCING
STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY IN SITU
HUMAN
ERROR
The following analysis has been extracted from the
process of building the first prototype of two identical
vaults, designed by the MIT Masonry Research Group and
built in January of 2010. I served as a primary designer
and construction manager for this project. By carefully
observing discrepancies between predicted, designed
vaults and errors which are produced during construction,
constructional rules may be abstracted from learned
experience.
The formative structural design parameters of this vault
include: 1.Aseries of longitudinal catenary lines embedded
in the masonry surface as the primary structural system.
2. A series of transverse splines, which are fixed in length
to maintain equal masonry coursing (and to minimize
comprehensive custom-cutting), but which vary in
curvature to generate an undulating masonry surface with
a deep structural footprint and stiffening double-curvature.
An analysis of the vault may be broken down into the rules
of form and the rules of sequencing. For the former, the
above description will suffice. The following drawn analysis
will predominantly address the rules of sequencing, as they
pertain to the observation of structural integrity in in-situ
transitional construction states and human error in the
process of sequentially laying bricks. These two catagories
of sequencing are critical and unique to the domain of
structual masonry construction, without which a thin-shell
vault can very rapidly fail to maintain a viable unit/ system
relationship, and subsequently, a viable structural form.
89lbs
9lbs
3
'
203lbs
203lbs
18C
lbs
180
lbs
GRAPHICAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS
UN[T CONSTRAINTS:: TURN§NG RADIUS
N
..........
------------------ --------.................
-----------
L-qj
f\
/
\
H§NG§NG.-.- SHORTAND LONG AX§S
]
-----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------: ----------------------
S
L
S+L
UNIT-SYSTEM BRICK OPERATNS:
SHORTAXIS HINGE
LONG
AXIS HINGE
SHORT + LONG AXIS HhNGE
SHORT EDGE DISPLACEMENT
LONG EDGE DISPLACEMENT
SHORT + LONG EDGE DISPL ACEMENT
~IjzI~2
LI4m~zz
Lz:Ez:
LIIpFZZI
A/
MULT-AXS H§NG§NG:
A\)
7
0'
C
APPLBED RESEARCH:
41
AfIm
y
K'
VAULT201 :: MT ASONRY RESEARCH GROUP
THE COOPER-HEWITT NATIONAL DESIGN TRIENNIAL, March 2010
An extreme increase of the thickness of brick used to build Vault 201 at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum meant that a new strategy entired had to
be developed to build the surface. The analytical component of the thesis - in addition to the experience of comprehensive custom-cutting in
the prototype vault built in January - indicated that our vault's high degree of double-curvature would have too great aturning radius for this
brick to accommodate without destroying the structural coherency of the surface. Thus, asmall taxonomy of modified bricks was developed three primitives: a long-end bevel, short-end bevel, and a short-end oblique - which, when two or more were combined, would require achiral
position in the vault. As the construction manager for this installation, it was my responsibility to solve this challenge ahead of time, to build and
to direct the construction of this vault with custom orders of modified units. Any of these modifications, however, could have been industrially
produced through typical industry clay extruders. This discovery, bourne out of material constraints and constructional logics, would indicate
for later design implementation the ways in which a modified unit can be made to achieve strategically directional surfaces.
43
THE MODFED UNT::
HYBRODED STERECTOMY FOR NDUSTRAL PRODUCTION
2---MASONRY UNIT
(pre-fired)
EXTRUSION
ii;
CLAY BLANK
H
II
H
/
/
/
1)
As we have seen, there are material limits and unit constraints to the degree of curvature
possible in doubly-curved masonry vaults, with respect to the relational proportion
between the unit size and the overall span of the structure. Double-curvature is
nevertheless desirable, because it provides added structural rigidity and agreater effective
structural footprint (enhancing both the structural performance of the completed vault
but also in in-situ states during construction, before all forces are distributed through the
system). We can, however, modify the unit to accommodate for much higher degrees of
double-curvature - a strategy which may also be wielded towards new aesthetic terrain
in contemporary vault construction.
46
Lt,
I7w
Z,
00
6SV
US JLKLLPS H3H3S3=ND S3(
SYNTHESIZED 4D MASONRY CONSTRUCTON DESON LOIC
RECIPROCAL LOGIC: UNIT/ SYSTEM // METHOD OF ASSEMBLY
UNIT
SYSTEM
RREGISTRATON
FORMWORK
DIRECTIONALITY
HINGING
SEQUENCE
REMOVAL)
CONSTRUCTION/
(INSTALLATION/
BRICK
SEQUENCING
BRICK
UNITOPERATION
(HINGING/SLIDING/
CUSTOMCUTTING)
my
~LID
/?2
cm
U'
METHOD OF ASSEMBLY
UNIT
I-
DRAWNG
BLD__U§LjDffNG
4D MASONRY CONSTRUCTION PARAMETERS:
() MAX/ MIN OF HINGING, SLIDING + CUSTOM-CUTTING
() RELATION B/W UNITIZED VARIABILITY + FORM.
(Oblique bevel/ oblique cut)
() LIGHT/ APERATURE/ DISINTEGRATION OF SURFACE/
DISJUNCTION OF PA1TERN AND STRUCTURAL GEOMETRY.
2D COURSING
PATTERN
The 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction
proposes that the masonry unit is
conceptualized,visualized
an positionedMATERIAL
poitinedFORM
concptulizd,
isulize and
REGISTRATION
SEQUENCE
STRUCTURE
CATENARY +
D-CURVATURE
FORM
MATERIAL REIMOVEDfWHERE U NNECESSARY
BREAK STRUCTURAL SYMMETRY
FORMWORKSTRATEGY-MODIFIEDCINTREL
MORE FREE CANTILEVER
PROFILES! LIGHTWEIGHT GUIDES! STRING REGISTRATION
ER/RORERECNIEE
LRE
E$OP'STRATEGY
FORMFORMMA
with respect to acomprehensive strategy
PRCTUAN ERROR
which 'registers' it within a complexly
These registration
hinged system.
lines are the 'invisible' construction lines which critically dictate both position and sequence. Since
the masonry unit in this case is modified, the geometry of the masonry unit and masonry system
are reciprocal. These geometries of masonry coursing, however, are merely concerns of pattern
geometry. The more challenging question ishow to embed radical pattern geometries from coursing
into structural geometries.
The following investigations show how the masonry system is tested in limit-states of both unit
hinging and displacement. The thin-shell tile vault is radicalized by allowing the units to operate
within a translational geometry, both hinging and displacing within the surface to create vaults with
high degrees of double-curvature and porosity. Where the typical unit may be analyzed graphically
by virtue of the hinging constraints on a surface, these research discoveries nevertheless fall short
of the description of an asymmetrical and displacing unit. To introduce apertures into thin-shell
vaults, we must separate the pattern geometries and structural geometries, selecting a masonry
system which allows for porosity, whilst still nevertheless allowing for the most efficient transfer of
structural loads to the ground. Aformwork strategy must then be introduced that allows the modified
masonry unit to be deployed consistent with the tendencies of its geometry - in other words, each
masonry unit must define its structural position and formwork support conditions, rather than afixed
formwork defining the position of the masonry unit. The units are no longer fixed, but generating
directional surfaces. The resulting structures may be conceived of as 2-dimensional coursing or
pattern geometries projected into a 3-dimensional structural forms. These unique geometries push
the very limits of the structural and constructional constraints in thin-shell tile vaulting, resulting in
diaphanous and structurally unique thin-shell vaults, which are nevertheless are rigidly defined by
the rules of each.
COURSNG PATTERN &REGST
TN LENES
RELATING UN§T, SYSTEM AND SEQUENCE
4
IT
PARALLEL
HERRING BONE
FIXED LINE
(PARALLEL)
DIAGONAL
\- \~N
CHALLENGES OF TAUGHT STRING REGISTRATION:
T
ALTERNATING
TAPIRED
UNDULATING
A:
B:
C:
D:
REQUIRES RELIABLE CONNECTIONS (CATENARY - HIGH ABOVE)
CANNOT DESCRIBE CURVATURE
TIME CONSUMING INSTALLATION
REGISTRATION DOES NOT PRODUCE FORMWORK STRATEGY
1/
C-.)
FIXED LINES;
ROTATED ABOUT POINTS
(STAIR)
CIRCUMFERENTIAL
FIXED LINE;
ROTATED ABOUT POINT
(CINTREL)
1
DRAWING IN SPACE:
1: A REGISTRATION LINE ISA LINE DRAWN IN SPACE BY WHICH TO ALIGN MASONRY UNITS.
2: THIS MUST BE A TAUGHT LINE (STRING SECURED BY ANCHORS OR GRAVITY).
3: IT MUST HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO POSITION A UNIT WITH RESPECTTO ITS'SYSTEM TRANSLATIONS'
4: UNITS CAN BE REGISTERED PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO SURFACE (OR BOTH).
5: REG LINES CAN BE TOTALLY INVISIBLE.
(IE.A CIRCLE INSCRIBED BY A ROTATING LINE.)
WHAT IFREGISTRATION TECHNIQUE + FORM STRATEGY WERE COINCIDENT?
/0,00,
FIXED LINE;
PULLED BY GRAVITY
(VERTICAL PLUMB)
UJN§T CONSTRA#NTS
. A 4D& CLRAPHCAL SLLITN
HINGONG.
SLUDNG-
GLOIGG
Th/ANSLATDON:
-----
IDEAL HINGE
MAX HINGE
VECTOR RESULTANT
OF ADJACENT SEGMENTS
UNITTHICKNESS
PATTERN, POROS§TY& DiSAGGREGATION
TRANLSATOfNAL GEOMETRIES OF THE UNIT
UNIT TRANSLATIONS
/
i
/
f
UNiT/PROPORTIONS
I
I
//
H1
yin
nmvIT-m~
L~tII I7TIlIIILl
LJbjI--[]lmW
DRAWNG
1: EASIEST SURFACE REGISTRATION
~~~.
SsPE
FAST/~
RADIAL SWEEP
MAEf A
1NEPENV
N
LBR
2: HOWEVER, CATENARY FORM IS NOT A FIXED RADIUS.
GOTHK
PPIMATED
IS GEO
E RY WvTH
AN
POIN ' AR
FORMWORK 5TRATEGY
CATENARY CINTREL
3: THE USE OF RADIAL REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR CATENARY GEOMETRY.
NITR
iO
TOD
WANNUJOMO
M
AL G
OBiCRFDSR
C
I
A
AYCN
L
4DASSEMBLYSERIES
VAULT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
1: ESTABLISH
& SURFACE
POINTS
2: ROTATE
TO PLANE SURFACE
FOR CATENARY CONSTRUCTION
3: DRAW GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
A: DRAW LOAD LINES AT INTERVALS ON FORM
B: CONSTRUCT CATENARY SEGMENTS
HEIGHT INTERVALS
C: ESTABLISH
4: PLACE 4D FORMWORK/ REGISTRATION
A: MATCH CATENARY HEIGHTS
INTO VERTICAL POSITION
5: ROTATE
FOR MASONRY SURFACE
6: JOIN WITH PLATE
DRAWING IN SPACE ::
WHAT DOES A CONSTRUCTION DRAW THATA DRAWING CANNOT?
7UF
09
2
'<'414
'~4~44Z
~v
J~NK'
>~J 24<j '
'7
-Z4
II
............
pal
I
40-Z(-4
THE DIRECT§ONAL TENDENCY OFBR§CK
ERROR CASCADEAS AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM
40
z
ORTHOGONAL
BRICK
U
LU
LU
D/RECIONAL
UNIT
SURFACE
VECTOR
TERMINAL
EDGE
ANALYSIS OF UNIT CURVATURE
UNIT ALIGNMENT
4
- -+
4'~4
8'
16'
12*
002-
LIZZIN
SA;d
.
0.09/1%
-
#2Chk
SR.RFACF
IA"?is.nlENCut
NT
TO
Ti!RMamiMG
SYSTEM AGGREGATION :: SEQUENCING
O*
ATM
STRATEGY OF PROJECTiON:
TENDENCIES OF PATTERN CURVATURE
PROJECTED
D@
x
y
SPATIAL HINGING
\"MJ)CONSTRUCTIONAL DRAWING INSPACE
gi
Bg
/ *
*
1sr
~------+
LAsT
/
I
------------ ----
2D SYSTEM VARIATION:
pq
70
...........
ELpop
17
i
X4i
lo n
76
r l
00
0Z
00
BLOG DDSCOURSE:
4D MASONRY CQTSTRUCTQON
81
4D Masonry Tools
April 29, 2010
Can one imagine a compass (or dividers) - the most primary tool of the historical mason - without the dimension of time, without the operative
task of the rotation?
FORM ISDICTATED BY 4-DIMENSIONAL DRAWING TECHNIQUE.
April 29, 2010
4D Drawing in Funicular masonry
April 29, 2010
As far as the 4-Dimensional drawing goes, there isatremendous precedent of such a concept in the history of the design of funicular masonry
structures. Graphical analysis itself isa drawing system which isscalable to describe the surface of a built structure, and isfurther materialized
through its foundational principles in Hooke's Second Law:
"As hangs the flexible line, so but inverted will stand the rigid arch."
So, the funicular form itself - a hyperbolic cosine function delineating the
most efficient and minimal form under self-weight - is not easily described
by geometrical drawing, but derived instantaneously with a chain - a
material proficiency! The word catenary means "relating to a chain". The
German term "Kettenlinie" means literally "chain-line". So, this formative
structural logic for minimal forms in masonry is approximated by a
drawing convention
-
graphical analysis - which may translate between
design and construction, yet ismost wholly represented by a material line
under self-load - a chain.
Thus, the 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction is the relationship and the
act of translation between design drawing and material drawing.
Guastavino, Cathedral of St. John the Divine.
What isthe 4-Dimensional Drawing?
April 29, 2010
Since one of the 4 research facets of this thesis- and really, the most significant angle of theoretical and technical innovation - is"4D Design:
Spatial, Material and Constructional drawing" it iscritical here to clarify what ismeant by the 4-dimensional drawing.
The 4-dimensional drawing isembedded within the act of construction itself, and isan integral principle of the way in which a masonry structure
(as opposed to any other type of construction) isbuilt by craftsmen. Now, all sorts of constructional methods involve a registration of sorts so
that building components'line up'in their fully assembled state. But masonry isparticular, insofar as the builder must'see a surface'through all
stages of construction, carefully laying bricks in position so that the geometry of the entire system isnot compromised by a poorly placed brick
which cascades into system error. This isparticularly important when building with techniques derived from Spanish timbrel vaulting, where
bricks are set by cantilevering into space off of the last course, and are set very rapidly on account of the use of high compressive strength and
rapid-set plaster mortar. When a surface then curves into space (in two directions nonetheless), how does the mason know where each brick
should be positioned so that the structural form isnot lost?
Many different types of tools are used by the craftsman to'draw in space'the ideal registration for a masonry surface. Mason's line or chain,
plumbs, line-levels, levels, squares, angles, templates (paper, wood, or traits), compass (or dividers) and rule. In aconstructional system, certain
of these tools may combine with the greatest registration tools of the mason - the hand and the eye - to systematically describe where the
masonry surface wants to be in any particular position. One such system isthe cintrel, a central pole with mason's line connected at the top,
which may be rotated about the pole to register bricks in the construction of a dome.
But still - these masonry tools occupy a grey zone between drawing as an act of building and building as an act of drawing.
The board below - long since the desired theme of the 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction - will come to be tested as analytical research,
design and construction overlap. These examples - stereometrical drawing, Islamic Mucarnas drawing, and the ruled-surface hyperboloids of
Gaudi - are drawing systems which are made to translate into a 3-dimensional space, as registration of masonry surface in the temporal act of
construction. Pencil lines on paper become drawings on materials and construction surfaces, extended by the tools of the mason into space.
This isthe 4-dimensional drawing, acritical translator between masonry design and construction, drawing and building.
Penultimate review
April 26, 2010
From Construction to Design, Design to Construction
April 13, 2010
(
7
M~
I;
Intellectual Q's
March 2,2010
Precisely how are the'intellectual'question and the'constructional'question posed as mutually exclusive?
_ Where
_ What
do concerns of'craft'lie in relation to contemporary computational design?
isthe threshold of computation in the domain of human and material error?
are the implications of the distinction "building a sketch"(as opposed to the "illustration of a geometry") suggested by Nader, and how
does this apply to notions of the 4-dimensional constructive drawing?
_ What
Can the customized treatment of an industrially produced unit be ascribed to the domain of the craftsman or builder, by virtue of the
attention to idiosyncratic details of fixed and predictable systems? Likewise, may the variability of unitized systems be ascribed to the domain
of the designer? May one utilize the former in the service of the latter, exploiting this knowledge of the hand towards new applications - not
merely fastidious craftsmanship, but crafted design?
_
What might reconcile the apparent incommensurateness of (increasing) complexity in rule-based logics and the synthetic, sensory
responsiveness and intuition of contemporary craft? Isdesign itself not positioned as antithetical to such sensory responsiveness?
_
Can one say that stereotomy was a product of geometric practices associated with renaissance architecture? According to Robin Evans,
stereotomy evolved from geometry just as it did from constructibility: Cutting would be thus a geometric and constructional "reciprocity
between masonry unit and method of assembly"(Nader). I like this phrase.
_
_ Is
such practical geometry not by nature a reconciliation of geometry and material, theory and praxis?
_ Is
it possible for a masonry unit to generate states of in-situ structural stability?
is an Irish word -'tomhais'- which means both 'guess'and 'measure' Can such a concept be represented by the intuitive measuring
and accounting of the craftsman? How can an intuitive accounting - synthesized knowledge of the hand, the eye, the body - come to be
analytically represented through such asystem as reductive computational analysis? How can this intelligence be extracted in application to a
computational'craftsmanship' a synthetic and analytic constructive sensibility?
_ There
_ What
are the limits of analytical methodologies in computational programming?
Is the greatest weakness of computation that it considers all things as rule based logics, where rule-based logics have an inherent limit to
the number of variables or parameters to maintain the coherency of a problem? Can sensory responsive logics of craftsmanship intuitively
synthesize a great many more variables?
Does 'computational determinacy'exclude the reconciliation between what may be computationally generated and how it is resolved in
construction?
_
Is most computational design motivated by a desire for the transcendence of the concerns of labor (ie.Gramazio + Kohler, Mark Goulthorpe),
the elevation of automaticity in construction over the intelligences of the hand and the eye? How do latent class concerns play out here?
_
What in my own method ismost similar to the tendencies of contemporary computation? Perhaps a methodological approach that proposes
that mistakes - variations from normative logic sets - provide the opportunity for a new design intervention?
_
How may one embed this intuitive problem-solving back into the design process? Can this occur by problematizing errors - which exist
already in the context of craftsmanship - within a different paradigm for resolution?
_
Thesis Review II
February 25, 2010
Gathering drawing tools...
February 14, 2010
In masonry, what are the tools for drawing in space?
The chain, string, plumb, line level, straight level, template, compass and rule, angle and tape, cintrel...
All serve their purposes in the registration of the masonry system.
These spatial drawing tools will be considered throughout the design process, constituting a4D masonry drawing projected on the plane of
design representation.
Thesis Review I
February 10, 2010
I
~7f~
se
110K1
El4 "~mm* m
U.
w
F
An account of my first thesis argument follows:
"The 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction" explicitly a
design-research thesis in the area of structural masonry
innovation, proposes that considerations of the 4th dimension
- the extension of design from a spatial to a spatio-temporal
paradigm - critically engages contemporary disciplinary
divides between design, material science, structural
engineering, and construction.
#1 - 4D STRUCTURE. The thesis will take as its benchmark a
radical efficiency,'economy ofform'and perhaps contradictory
aesthetic extravagance in structural masonry innovation, as
developed through the works of such engineer/architects as
Rafael Guastavino, Felix Candela, Eladio Dieste, and Antoni
Gaudi. Such design may be considered as 4-dimensional in
the responsiveness of structure and form.
Additionally, three important areas of technical and aesthetic
innovation - linked together through design-research
investigations - will culminate in the construction of several
medium-scale studies and the design and construction of a
full-scale vault prototype:
#2 - 4D MATERIAL. A radical economy and reconstitution of
material, which will seek to tap the consumer waste stream,
invert resource flows and invent carbon-sinking masonry
structures. This material innovation takes as core principles the
ideas that material properties dramatically impact structural
behavior (thus the aesthetics of new forms), and that broader,
time-scale considerations of material impact environmental
ideologies in the discipline.
#3 - 4D TECTONICS. Analysis and invention in the area of
systems aggregation, which will investigate limit-stages in the relationship between masonry unit and system, intersections and aggravations of
structural, pattern and constructible geometries in brick. Such limit-stages will engage aesthetic, material, structural, and tectonic constraints and translate between design, material science, engineering, and construction - to produce new forms. Such limit-stages engage both technical
and aesthetic themes of architectural eschatology, critical also, as mentioned, within contemporary trends towards considerations of life-cycle
sustainability. Further, the interrogation of the masonry unit problematizes the terrain of industrial productivity in brick manufacturing, and will
seek to develop systems of structural and tectonic idiosyncrasy through variation of the brick unit.
#4 - 4D DRAWING. New conventions and aesthetics in architectural design drawing - the 4th dimensional drawing . This is,quite technically,
an impossible construction, a representation of the 4th dimension in a plane projection. Such a temporal masonry design drawing calls forth
paradigms of translational design and construction craftsmanship, as have been articulated through the historical, cultural, and geometric
scholarship of Robin Evans on stone stereometry and Gulru Necipoglu on Islamic geometric construction. The end-goal of the 4D drawing is
the conflation of design and construction autonomy - the consideration of the design drawing as a pseudo-spatial act of construction through
the operational tools of design, and the consideration of the masonry construction itself as a'drawing in space'enabled through the operational
tools of the hand and the eye.
Taken together, these innovations of the 4th dimension are intended to synthetically drive design logics which are both architectural and
constructional, technical and aesthetic, technological and craft-based. Design of the 4th dimension isa mode by which the act of design and
the act of construction are reconciled through an interpenetration of the logics of each. Here, the skill-sets of the builder and those of the
architect are exchanged.
Late night folding of the mind...
February 10, 2010
There are moments in one's life that are something like the paper folding metaphor of Teilhard de Chardin... biology itself complexified with a
continual folding in and over of things previously folded. Recursion and re-clarification of old intuitions.
Yesterday, I found a slip of paper from before 2005 with a rough sketch of a tangent array, some natural cut stone piecing, and a cryptic
speculation of the work I would have done - I wanted to do - had I known how:
1/2 Geometry
1/2 material science
+ 1/2 intuitive puzzle-making
I suppose that just about adds up to my thesis: 1 1/2. A veritable 4-dimensional 'becoming two' with all of these parameters as critical facets
of the work. What I mostly could not articulate at the time, was how to make geometry structural and not simply pattern making. I can say
now that I have a very good grasp on this topic, and that I will attempt to reconcile structural geometries and pattern geometries through this
study. If I can do it - as I can now actually imagine - it will most certainly be the thing that I came to MIT blindly grappling for. Funny how life
folds back on itself when one searches for the threads which haunt us. Even masonry itself can be made to fold - the very best of Rorschachs
for one, Lara Davis.
Self-reminder to talk to Erik and Marti Demaine on this one.
4th dimension - a diagram of space-time
February 8, 2010
Tags: 4-dimensionality, Craftsmanship, Projective Geometry
After some long discussion last night with Mallory on such various 4-dimensional themes as Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and
Charles Hinton's hypercubes, it has occurred to me (further, really) that the 4-dimensional drawing isan impossible construction, that such
a drawing may only be the image of a spatio-temporal phenomena represented (or diagramed) in plane projection. The real 4-dimensional
drawing isthe time-based act of construction. The construction of masonry itself may be mapped out as a 4-dimensional drawing, but more
importantly, the 4-dimensional drawing isconstituted bythe establishment of the registration for masonry construction. The line, the line-level,
the level, the plumb, the angle, the square, the template, the trait... the eye, most importantly; these are the tools of registration which set the
unbuilt masonry construction into a spatial framework, which translate it from a 2-dimensional drawing into a 3-dimensional space, by way of
an operation of the 4th dimension.
Does this 4th dimension exist then? Only insofar as it expresses aseries of points in time which describe the unfolding of a construction. But if
we were to take this 4th dimension into the representational space of the design drawing, what would it look like??
Thanks, Mal... the 4th dimension only exists if perchance it is registered by the eyes of another, even if just the tracing blip on the screen in the
broader context of the mysterious formulation of design.
The Masonry Design-Research Laboratory:: Heros of Method
February 7, 2010
Tags: Design research, History of Masonry
The methodology for the design and production of this thesis falls into the context of the"Design-Research Laboratory" Departing somewhat
from the typical constraints of a holistic architectural proposal (site, context, program, discrete building), what I will investigate through this
Masonry Design-Research Lab isacomplex of material, structural, tectonic, constructional, and aesthetic criteria. Each productive investigation
should in fact be testing multiple criteria at once - for instance in structural cantilever and aesthetic form.
Such isthe nature of the very history of the'design-research lab': multi-criteria oriented. Many of the pedagogical forefathers of this approach
have been taken up in the discipline of architecture, including the tremendous influences of Laszlo Moholy-Nagy and Gyorgy Kepes at MIT.
Perceived as a dilittantish approach in contemporary academia on account of the vast specialization in the discipline, such an intensive
multiple-criteria investigation has gained as a value proposition for the integration of disciplinary facets and serves to question the perennial
optical dominance in design method. Moholy-Nagy's "Sense Labs"of the Bauhaus and New Bauhaus periods enabled a critical role for sensory
perception in design, while juxtaposing such 'immeasurable'qualities always within quantitative analysis. Moholy-Nagy - the vestigial father
of late modernist architectural education - will be an unsung hero in a methodological approach, which is neither wholly technological nor
emotive/intuitive, neither wholly invested in engineering nor aesthetics. But atranslator of each to the other.
One other unsung methodological hero isRobin Evans, the tremendous historian and theorist who passed away far too early nearly 2 decades
ago now. We still miss historians such as Evans, increasingly so today. Evans'profound investigation of stone stereotomy (inThe Projective Cast)
isa great model for the way in which technological constructions impact social histories and social constructions. As it isa goal for this project
to bridge design and construction through the 4-dimensional drawing - aspatial, constructional drawing of masonry - Evans'discoveries about
the higher geometric operational nature of stereotomy will be critical in formulating the underlying principles of the thesis. Evans writes:
"Stereotomy was at the very edge of architecture. Is was also at the edge of mathematical geometry, at the edge of technical drawing, of
structural theory, practical masonry, and military engineering."
The avant-garde sets itself apart, a military advance in concept, a leadership but nevertheless a defection from the body. But methods such
as stereotomy were at the edge, not the fore. And so, too, will be the design-research laboratory for the 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction.
Material studies lab
February 7,2010
Contemporary design education eschews material studies - material isitself treated as no more than asurface aspect of a protean or chameleonic
design form, which may be'rendered'with any other appearance. As long as we treat material as an optical effect rather than as a multi-sensory
and structurally, environmentally, and spatially performative medium, we are designing with only half of our capacities.
Perfection - or design?
February 5,2010
Tags: Craftsmanship, Logics of design, Transgressive patterning
The greatest tools - it may be argued - that may come into the domain of the artist, the designer, the architect are actually mistakes of the n-th
order. Mistakes, or anomalies really, which depart from normative methods, yet which still cling to convention in such a manner that they may
still be evaluated for their functional or aesthetic use-value. It isbeholden to the designer to notice these anomalies as they occur in the process
of design, for when one tacks into their direction, innovation occurs.
And so, the very concerns of masonry idiosyncrasy which have been only just barely touched upon below (see "The Beginning") give us pause
for two possible paradigm manifestations of detail in design and construction: The one, isthe perfecting of craftsmanship sought by both our
design and construction sectors, intheir own ways of course. The other, however, isthe harnessing of the mistake - the elevation of the anomaly
- towards the goal of innovation.
Now, if one may lay the perfect course of bricks as it isdescribed by the design drawing - keeping the proper registration line, angular orientation,
mortar course width and surface aspect - we say that this isa success of the craft of construction. It will come to describe, in asystem of such
bricks, the perfect surface. Conversely, it may come to pass that the bricks are imperfect and, for instance, crooked ever so slightly to one side
like a banana, and the builder notices a moment at which the perfect coursing has taken leave towards the establishment of a new imminent
pattern. Where the receiving brick edge may call for'banana left'to keep proper the lines of coursing, its chiral opposite has been used, which
will break the line and create a cascading system of courses which tend towards the right. The builder has the options available to correct this
imperfection, or to exaggerate it. Where the former would also be called a success of the craft of construction, the latter may be called a success
of crafting through design, which consciously departs from normative patterning in pursuit of a new aesthetic.
The purpose of this thesis isto identify imminent patterning anomalies which may occur in typical constructions, to wield them intrinsically
towards the goal of their aggregative transgression, and to establish such transgressions of pattern as aesthetic potential of contemporary
masonry design.
Why, it might be asked, would contemporary masonry design tend towards the transgression of pattern? Keep posted, dear reader. Such isthe
mischief of design.
The Incommensurate Logics of Designing and Building?
February 5,2010
I have discovered over the course of my design education that there are many instances of contemporary design technology that simply cannot
translate into constructional logics. This isperhaps difficult to qualify... but take the Rhino model, for instance: it istheoretically perfect in its
geometrical tolerances. So we think, and take for granted in any case. The operative tools of a digital space create their own illogical geometries
- interpenetrating volumes, visually convincing connections which cannot be made to intersect. But, in masonry, it istheir perfections that are
most hazardous - as the previous post has suggested .
There isa certain point at which the Rhino model ceases to be the accurate rule for measurements in the field... and where another logic must
intervene somehow. Perhaps this isat once too esoteric and also too simple. Perhaps this isthe preemptory declaration of my defection from
design. Ah, but I don't think so. I believe that there are intuitive design - not merely construction - logics which cannot be made to comfortably
exist in sections, plans, or 3d digital models. They constitute a sensory mode of adaptation, where the imperfections in the translation from
paper to material call for design interventions of the hand. The optically-biased design logic issupplanted by the hand-based design logic, since
these sensory cues develop into an analytical puzzle. I may look at avault, for instance, see it standing, and think that it isperfectly sound. But to
tap that same vault - to feel the inflection and to listen to the acoustical feedback of stable and unstable regions - engages a sensory cognition
which may be relayed back into a design process. The graphic tools of drawing and presentation may be the first and most dominant language
in architectural design, but they are not the only language.
This thesis will seek out these interstitial, translational linguistics... the intuitive kauderwelsh between the dominant logics of design and those
of construction. Itwill interrogate the technologies employed, their applicability to both sets of logics, and their weaknesses in translation. And
it will look to historically precedented masonry technologies and techniques to provide a model for both theory and praxis.
The beginning. From 3d to 4d, the trick is how one starts
February 2,2010
Arepeat-post from'vaulting'...
The consolidation of four-dimensional design:
Consider for a moment that a masonry structure iscomposed of details, many details, which in their whole organization must come to work
as a system. So now, when we look at the detail - our brick - we must always see two things at once: a unit (which has its ideal position) and
a system (composed of these units). In a 3d model, these units always fall in their proper place - but a brick, well, it isan idiosyncratic thing!
Each brick has its own shrinkage proportions based on its position in the kiln
and exposure to heat, it has cracks which distort it, it has uneven edges on the
surface side of sand-molded bricks, such as the ones we are currently using.
Each brick has adifferent water content (since they must be soaked in sequence
in preparation for laying). Each brick is laid in a sequence of plaster mortar
batches, during which period plaster changes its character from wet and runny
to dry and thick, thus slightly altering the thickness of a mortar joint. These are
some of the many myriad of things which make a brick an idiosyncratic detail
of a highly organized system. So the devil is here in the details... in sorting
them out to best position awonky brick (this isatechnical term), and to see the
whole system in such a light that it may respond to the alterations that each
brick induces into the often cascading distortions of asystem. But to see these
dramatic distortions, one must anticipate them as they aggregate, indeed, one
must anticipate them in the very inclination of each brick. And the difficulty of
this task increases as the geometry of the overall system iscomplexified.
For this reason, most especially for complicated geometries, registration or
guide lines become very important to ensure that the masonry system does
not distort beyond an acceptable range. In our case, with a one inch thick
shell, the most critical distortion which cannot be accepted isthat which falls
significantly outside of the range of our catenary thrust lines.
For any pattern that is established as a masonry system, there are counterpatterns which the bricks may take. Personally, I find these patterns extremely
interesting, so I study them. They are often as beautiful as a regular masonry
pattern, yet they have a tendency towards entropy - a pattern that destroys
itself. The mason directs negative entropy in the system, the entropy which
must be exported for the system to correct itself.
Backwards: From Construction to Design
February 2,2010
Tags: Design vs Construction, Systems analysis
4-Dimensional Masonry Design will call into question the hierarchies of method in contemporary architectural design. Where a typical design
methodology might evolve from aesthetic studies, into systems analysis, further to engineering considerations, and then finally into concerns
of constructibility, this thesis will invert the temporal hierarchy of design and propose an interrogation of time-based methods in construction
which inform the design process.
By working backwards, so to speak, construction and engineering will be positioned as integral aspects of masonry design, and design itself will
be inflected with the aesthetics of constructibility. What does this mean, you ask? What does it mean for a builder to design, or for a designer
to build? The history of masonry innovation is rife with these questions, and the tools of the mason will be studied here for an inversion of
traditional craft into a query of new aesthetics in contemporary masonry design.
10
0~
96
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTEOF TECHNOLOGY
MASONRY RESEARCH GROUP (MIT MRG)
BLOG
CO'
MOTMASIHRY RESEAnC=
iDLJn
-97
The Story of the Construction
APRIL 9, 2010
by limacon24
A16 foot span, 1-1/2 inches thick, 720 bricks throughout the vault surface - all within aconstruction schedule of FIVE days. Was it possible, we
asked? Yes, conceivably. Did it leave any room for error, however? - Not astitch! These time constraints - from the beginning - were the driving
factors in the vault design which emerged for the Cooper-Hewitt: a creative, innovative outcome for the desired geometric complexity, which
could still be buildable within this very limited time-frame.
However, all design must anticipate material and human error, and confront inevitable problem-solving on site. As was the case with our
construction - which could certainly not afford such delays. So, after a rather gross formwork tolerance error - which cost us one whole day!
of delay - the race was really on!
The result was one of the tightest deadlines and most fast-paced constructions I have ever participated in. Inthree days, with two bricking teams
and four other crew members on various critical support tasks, we finished the vault! I am reminded of the old adage, "Haste makes waste!"
However, in our case, we already had waste... 4 whole palettes of it, formed into beautiful bricks. Our break-neck speed certainly required
certain moments of clear reflection, as we observed small errors and the manner in which they needed to be corrected. At all moments, we had
to be critically attentive of such small errors to insure that they did not cascade into problems which could not be corrected - either deviations
from our structural catenary geometry or deviations from the pattern system of the masonry. Under the constraints of this time, it is very
satisfying to look up at this vault, to remember our hands as they placed bricks, to celebrate the idiosyncrasies in the position of each masonry
unit, and to praise our stars that there are bricks overhead!
Props to the Installation Crew
APRIL 9, 2010
by limacon24
(Left to right: Mike Cohen, Masoud Akbarzadeh, Lara Davis, Samuel Kronick, Sam Cohen, John Ochsendorf, Mallory Taub, Fabi Meacham, Cynthia Ting.)
So, I should stop stalling and get to it - the construction at the Cooper-Hewitt! Before describing our insane 5-day trials, however, I would
like to thank our installation team. For a number of reasons, we had to call on some somewhat less experienced hands for this construction.
However, I really believe in the end that it was most possible because of the impressive skill, patience, persistence and hard work of our crew.
The generosity of this group, who volunteered their time and gave up their spring breaks to build this project, was deeply impressive to me.
Invisible laborers always get very high marks in my book, and I am truly grateful for the support we had -within our team and at the museum.
Our particular gratitude goes our to Matt O'Connor, the production manager of the Cooper-Hewitt, and his extraordinary team, foremost, Kevin,
Jim and Roy. Their material support - and their great humor - throughout this construction made it not only possible to complete, but really a
great pleasure to build.
The Adaptation of the Unit
APRIL 8,2010
by limacon24
Nevertheless, one very marked difference between the prototype brick and the Cooper-Hewitt brick
spelled for us an imminent constructional problem - GL bricks are 1- 1/2"- 2x thicker than the bricks
used for the January prototype, increasing the structural safety factor of the vault, but also very much
increasing the difficulty of setting them into a doubly-curved surface with very tight tolerances for the
turning radius of each brick.
Thus, inorderto build this vaultatthe Cooper-Hewitt with Green Leaf bricks,a very strategic constructional
logic had to be employed: Rather than the somewhat predictable but also relatively arbitrary customcutting method employed in the January vault, the custom-cutting for the Cooper-Hewitt vault had to
be highly specific to the vault geometry and planned well so that we could still keep our (very tight!) 5
day construction schedule. It should be noted here that one of the most formative constraints for the
design of this vault was that of time. The curvature of the vault iscomposed of splines which vary in
profile but are fixed in length - all in order to keep an equal coursing pattern and to save in the time and
labor-intensive process of custom-cutting bricks.
What I planned was the following: Each custom-cut brick would have the quality of one of three
different brick modules, a primitive which could be chirally oriented for a left or a right, and combined
with other primitives as necessary. Alogic for the quantities required for each custom primitive was also
very important, so there were always enough of the critically necessary variations as we began to brick
the sections which required them. The results were very successful - Sam Kronick was our dedicated
brick cutter, who spent a good deal of the construction cutting in the basement with the wet-saw and
delivering our variants for their rough schedule in construction.
This is an example of what I would call constructional logics that are 1)learned from building (in this
case, in January), 2)analyzed and abstracted as rules, and then 3)re-embedded into the design process.
It could be said that this is merely the practice of good craft in building, but I would argue also that by fundamentally altering the logic of the brick unit, from a regular and industrially produced module,
to a taxonomic system of limited, customized module variations - the design of the brick isa creative
proposition for challenging constructional constraints. Now - while this vault could not have been
constructed with standard brick units, the project of my design thesis isto show what non-standardized
100
and variable units can - as a system - be made to build. The altered brick unit, the system of aggregated units, and the method of assembly
would in this case come to reciprocally generate each other.
Green Leaf bricks - 30% [****]
APRIL 8,2010
by limacon24
From the prototype vault built at MIT in January to the exhibition vault built at the Cooper-Hewitt, the most significant difference isthe brick
itself. Our tremendous gratitude goes out to James Kolodziey and Charles Taylor at Green Leaf Brick and Taylor Clay Products; they have been
instrumental in stepping up the manufacture of this highly custom-produced material to meet our construction deadline. I have learned agreat
deal about the efficiency of manufacture inthe industry, by coming to understand what it takes for abrick plant to clean the lines of production
of a mass produced brick in order to push through a small production run. It must be akin to heard-farming really, for a plant manager to get
as many of one type into a sequence as possible, to keep the'down-time'of cleaning and set-up between manufacturing runs from eating the
costs of production. Our team at Green Leaf and Taylor have taken considerable pains in the name of productivity for this vault to be built, and
we hope very much that this will pay forward for them in some way.
Green Leaf brick isa 100% post-consumer and post-industrial recycled material composed of:
30% processed sewage waste
by-products of open pit-mining
operations
recycled glass
virgin ceramic scrap slated for
landfill
industrial dust filtration contents
among other things...
The clay engineering of these bricks is extraordinary, and its engineer, Steve Blankenbeker, has demonstrated that this brick is part of a long
tradition in scientific innovation of conventional, industrially produced brick and experimental sustainable production methods. Through Steve,
I have come to know the incredible culture of brick production, which ultimately crosses over into the terrain of geology and material science.
It has been a great pleasure to work with these bricks - and I do not intend to be hyperbolic here. The perfect regularity of GL bricks make
them very predictable in terms of how they behave in the vault construction - and perhaps contradicts one's preconceptions of so called
recycled products. Their heft - well, this somewhat underscores their being composed of 30% shit! I assure you, we have had many-a-person
inquisitively smell them - but one ishardly likely to get awhiff of anything after being fired above 1,900 degrees!
Catching up...
APRIL 8, 2010
by limacon24
We hope that the readers will forgive this small time delay... Is has been a rather
challenging task for our team leadership to take on the final phases of design drawing,
structural engineering calculation, materials testing, installation crew organization
and training, Cooper-Hewitt museum communications, project budget management,
final fabrication, materials preparation and delivery, tools assembly, and construction
management. It has been A LOT of work, but nevertheless an extraordinary experience
for design students to negotiate these diverse terrains from design through construction
- with the accountability required for construction in a historic museum such as the
Cooper-Hewitt.
With this disclaimer, in the following posts, I'd like to catch you up on the events of the
last week. Eight months of preparation - material and constructional prototype testing,
design and engineering iterations, specifications and construction sequence writing,
communication with manufacturers, exhibition coordinators, production managers,
engineers of record - have made this construction possible.
Scaffolding for construction
MARCH 4,2010
by limacon24
And so here we are... in the home stretch to brick at the
Cooper-Hewitt, beginning March 22. This iswhen the most
planning must come to be implemented, when the greatest
number of translations, delegations, and details must be
accomplished to manifest the extended, collective cognition
of our team. The scaffolding of the minds must support the
complex organization of the building project, just as the
centering must support the incomplete brick vault. This in my mind - is the most glorious part of architecture, sadly
missing from academia: Teamwork. Coordination. Delivery.
Stay tuned... The production has been designed, and the C-H
show isabout to begin.
Construction time-lapse
JANUARY 28, 2010
by limacon24
The final construction time lapses have been assembled. Short but sweet. We hope it goes so quickly for our 5 day construction schedule at
the Cooper-Hewitt!
Demolition - the long version
JANUARY 27, 2010
103
by limacon24
Especially for the die-hard structural engineers, here is Part I of the demolition: the 10 minutes of springing displacement and intermediary
failure before the final collapse (Part Il in previous post). It still has its dramatic moments and demonstrates the hinging mechanisms which
form in the vault, leading to its collapse at 6 inches of displacement. Keep in mind that there were also several significant sledgehammer blows
directed from the inside of the vault around the quarter-span region - precisely at the level where we will see the final failure hinges.
End-Game: Vault Demo
JANUARY 24,2010
by limacon24
Play as we did, the real end-game - as JAO mentioned - was the inevitable dominance of gravity as Silman gamingly abused our vault. The
final event - to destruction - would test our design intention to accommodate all horizontal thrust through friction along the base of the vault
springings. The Silman engineers marked out half-inch increments and then displaced one springing with sledgehammers to see how long it
would hold up, observing at each major behavioral alteration the cracks and mechanisms which were developing in the vault shell.
"Soit isdown to you, and it isdown to me! Ifyou wish her dead, by all means, keep moving forward." - TPB
But since she did hold up rather long indeed - for an
awesome horizontal displacement of approximately 6
inches, "off the charts"- I will include now the suddendeath moment of demolition, and add the drawn-out
version for the structural masonry fanatics when I have 4
or more hours of uninterrupted upload time...
What remained was intriguing, really. That undulating
vault is no more; but
-
even in ruins - she still had her
curves. Our great thanks to the engineers from Silman,
Smithsonian reporter Logan Ward, MIT wood-shop
director Chris Dewart, JAO, and the vault team!
104
MRG and Silman - "Load Testing"
JANUARY 24, 2010
by limacon24
And so it has come to aclose. The end-game for this January's prototype vault was aproject for the Masonry Research Group and Robert Silman
Associates, the structural engineering firm charged with the verification of our vault's structural stability and safety. The task was to de-center
the vault under their observation, and then to test the many ways in which it might be made to fail. A coup for the Masonry Research Group
would be a successful de-centering - and then the longest endurance against the beatings of our counterparts in construction: Silman the
demolishers!
But what playful and sensitive demolishers they were. Have you ever heard of a destroyer who listened with his hands? During the second
video, Derek Trelstad sounds the frequencies induced by the hammer with his hands, measuring the differential between those frequencies
conveyed through the end arch of the vault and those conveyed through a section that he had smashed-in with a rubber mallet. More such
tests occurred... indeed, our vault became the structural jungle-gym for our engineers as they sought out the weaknesses and strengths of our
vault - our advisor John 0 among them of course. It was really quite amazing to watch them all in action. Despite our team's initial reluctance
to destroy our first undulating, unobstructed view of the de-centered vault, we soon caught their spirit and followed suit:
De-Centering
JANUARY 24,2010
by limacon24
De-centering was a little hair-raising, especially with an audience, but watch her fly!
106
The Closing-In
JANUARY 24, 2010
by limacon24
We haven't posted in a few days, an effect no doubt of the
crunchy lack of sensation in one's fingertips and the moderately
enfeebling effect of daily overexertion - perhaps from carrying
the extra weight of mortar in cuffs, pockets, and hair, to be later
deposited on the floor of one's apartment. So it feels as though
I must go back to briefly recap the closing. Indeed, very briefly.
In fact it was done almost as soon as it had begun; in six days, all
masonry had been laid. The most challenging - and yet gratifying
- part was the closing-in, each course in succession as its last bricks
were laid to complete an arch. These sections had constructional
complexity that involved: 1.custom-cutting of bricks to fit within
the arches, 2.a condition offull cantilever inwhich, against gravity,
the mason must support bricks until mortar has been sufficiently
set, and 3.the most extreme curvature of the vault which required
steep joint hinging and difficult mortaring between each course
for it to turn into the curvature.
Though Imightadd thatthe greatest difficulty byfarwas squeezing
into or over the deep and narrow grid-shell compartments of our
formwork. Since the brick itself was designed by the measure of
the body, I think we will probably reconsider the usefulness of
such simple measures as shoulder-spans in the next version.
Through these days, my greatest thanks go to Mallory, my
mortar mixing and brick-laying teammate, who worked patiently
alongside me to spot me in the hairiest of moments, to read,
anticipate and direct the myriad of tasks necessary to set a good
brick - and occasionally, to catch a falling glob of wet mortar.
None of this work would be possible without the patience, timing
107
and teamwork between the members of our vault crew - in all facets of vault design, formwork design, materials sourcing, fabrication and
construction.
The satisfaction of the final brick was meant to go to John O's toddler, whose timbrel-flavored, multi-syllabic vocabulary includes such words as
"Guastavino"and "Barcelona" We considered how perfect it would be for John to claim to his future students that his daughter completed her
first vault before age two. Not this time, I'm afraid - though she did practice with warmish globs of play-doh Hydrocal, holding it up with a brick
as though to indicate she knew they went together. Soon enough, young vaulter.
Seeing a Surface
JANUARY 17, 2010
by limacon24
I will take up Scott's last thread, in the hopes to spur a blog-debate to keep our minds active
while we work:
It istrue, new technologies such as CNC fabrication do enable new aesthetic and structural
potentials, which were unavailable to previous architects, engineers, and builders of
masonry. However, I believe - more importantly perhaps - new technologies also create
new kinds of errors, which require innovative responses. And it isthe process of discovering
error through models and full prototypes, as this one, which allows a design to evolve. What
I find extremely applicable here about the greatest structures in the history of masonry
innovation, is that their daring created problems which had to be resolved by their own
architects and their inheritors. Just as di Cambio constructed the 42M span octagonal drum
for the dome of the Florence Cathedral, which could not be built for more than one hundred
years, until Brunelleschi's double-shell innovation proposed to span it without formwork.
Just as Isodore of Miletus and Anthemius ofTralles built a dome which collapsed repeatedly,
and had to be repaired and renovated by Sinan and other Ottoman architects. Just as the
fear of collapse of the dome of St. Peter's caused Poleni to so greatly advance contemporary
theory of masonry structure through his analysis of Hooke's'hanging chain'. My colleague
Peter Christiansen once queried whether it was the history of innovation in engineering
which led to such impressive structures, or whether it was the failure of impressive and
daring structures, which required - post-hoc - more significant advances in structural
engineering to solve the impossible problems they first presented.
108
do not believe that we can stand upon the shoulders of the
masonry greats, simply because they have been built and
engineering has advanced - because we have not yet had the
opportunity to learn first-hand from their failures. Perhaps we
will. Several weeks ago, some generous project managers of
the MIT dome renovation took me for a tour: The view from
the very top of the dome isone to which only an MIT hacker
so aspires, ah, but more exciting by far was to see what Walsh
Brothers excavated from the experimental original thin-shell
dome skylight, which has been leaking since before WWII. And
so much more by far, the view from between the two domes:
the indexes of ship-building technology in formwork board
marks on the inside of the outer structural concrete shell,
arrayed willy-nilly with no apparent geometrical coherency yet still describing a perfect surface for the eye of these early
20th century masons. How does the mason see this surface?
How does the computer see it?
I
This grid-shell of formwork profiles and thin grid of mason's
line approximates a surface, which our team must now begin
to'see'with brick. It will not be an easy task to develop the skills
of the eye in 'lofting' such a surface, though these are skills to
which the human eye (and in particular the eye of the mason) is
much better adapted than the automated robot - as Gramazio
and Kohler of the ETH in Switzerland have discovered through
their robotic masonry constructions. This surface curves in
two directions, and each bricks must be placed with respect
to its relationship to its neighbors and its role in correcting,
adjusting, "splitting the difference" in the errors of its neighbors
in describing the whole surface. This isthe fun part.
109
Risk ~Gain
SEPTEMBER 12, 2009
by limacon24
For those who were not present at the opening - and unable to witness our extravagant performance - I will describe for you some of the events
that transpired last evening:
With a few small miracles in finishing some difficult sections of the vault and some very rapid, large-batch mortar rounds, we managed to
complete the construction of the primary section of the vault in time for the exhibition opening. Our vault was completed with a small oculus
at the pinnacle of the dome, both as atestament to its thin-ness and to our tight time-table, as well as agorgeous teaser of interiority for a vault
lit from within in the late evening. I myself had no time to shift identity from construction worker to architect, and so attended the opening
clad head-to-toe in wet clay and plaster, passing somewhat precariously through crowds of tidy, black-clad young architects. I always love this
moment, when roles may be reversed and the unspoken (perhaps latent) class divisions between the design and the building culture are subtly
undermined - except normally I like to be the construction worker who morphs to architect/ intellectual in slightly more classy attire.
The risks that we have taken in the construction of this vault, in our eyes, have been absolutely proportional to the gains in our design and
construction education. The task of translating into construction design (and the actual building itself) of Philippe Block's complex curvature,
as well as the task of building with a very low carbon footprint - all in an extremely short time period - are numerous and self-evident: 1.The
choice of an unfired brick (never really meant to be used for such purposes), which resulted in both risk of water damage and the difficulty in
adhesion of masonry to mortar, 2. the decision to build at our full scale of 21' x 15' x 10,'high, 3. the unresolved design issue of how to best
approximate such complex curvature for the brick-layers and avoid local regions of negative curvature, 4.the very real significance of building
such a complex structure with student architects (and not more experienced construction workers or masons trained in the eye and hand
techniques of thin-shell vault construction), and 5.the timing of the project, which beset us with the task of resolving our material learningcurves even as we built the full-scale structure.
And so - there it was at the opening, finished. Would it stand or fail? Which variables of risk might govern our failure mode, if it were to occur?
We decided that the wagers taken to realize this vault only begged for the greatest gamble: to de-center the structure with a full audience.
We had removed one centering carefully before the exhibition, and - with the un-impeded view of the underside of one perimeter arch and
the curvature of our vault springing - we gained confidence that our public de-centering would indeed demonstrate vaulted splendor. Our
greatest error was that the time, and the pressure of public viewing, did not allow us to more carefully coordinate as ateam in the de-centering
process. Rather than de-center slowly and carefully the way the centering had been designed for removal, we opted for the more rapid and
perhaps'ta-da' method of the whole form removal - again, with much greater chance. During the removal of the formwork for the large end
arch, the masonite surface (upon which the brick arch was bearing) was pinched by the OSB panels of the main formwork, pulling on part of the
arch which had bonded to it. The result was a local failure of that eyebrow arch, followed by a crack along the opposite side of one groin, and
110
then, perhaps 4 seconds later, by the collapse of that springing and the whole vault with it. Despite all of the risks involved - it was nevertheless
a shocking occurrence for us.
My dear friend Mary Fillman, who graduated from MIT Department of Architecture in 1956, came to the opening and reminded me of the
long history and celebration of such prototype risk at MIT. She said that Bucky Fuller would have loved this test (and the failure of the vault),
and talked about Felix Candela's frank conceit that he had learned the art of building such complex hyperbolic paraboloid shells through the
collapse of several early prototypes. As you will remember, it is David Billington's exhibition of Candela's work that inspired the first proposal
for our group's MIT Museum grant submission, and John Ochsendorf, our advisor, who was a student of Billington. Such precedented cases
of risk and collapse are irrevocably linked to innovation in the field of structural masonry. Indeed, the flavor of the exhibition itself seemed in
some way to celebrate this history of innovation risk at MIT and our own part in the development of experimental thin-shell masonry structures.
The time-lapse sequence of our vault's construction, projected on the wall in the museum, animated the shattered shell in the courtyard with
a sense that we pushed the limits of what we knew to be possible in both our design and construction capacity. And though the spectacular
failure of our vault has been somewhat disappointing for us (and even perhaps, for a moment at least, just a hair demoralizing in such a public
context), well, frankly... it's pretty cool to watch avault come down!
Risk and gain are bound together in innovation, however, only when a commitment to further innovation is present. This entire process has
offered us a profound learning experience in which our design, material research, structural analysis and construction techniques have been
tested. This vault has taught our team tremendously - even more so through its collapse. And I will speak for myself here, in saying - I look
forward to implementing these discoveries in the next vault.
MATEROALS RESEARCH:
113
THE ELUSIVE GREEN THIN-BRICK:
"'Isyour green brick at the end of the rainbow, Lucky?"
What follows are my findings in the first phase of thin-brick material research and sourcing. I spoke to a contact of mine at the distribution
company Consolidated Brick, Lynn Donohue, and she started me off in the right direction and assisted in compiling a short list of thin-brick
manufacturers and plants. By going directly through the manufacturers, we could better identify the qualities which make a brick'green'or'not
green' and doubly increase our chances of adonation offer. My best neutral resources for the following information have also been Mike Longo
(at Marion Ceramics, SC) and Gregg Borchelt (BIA, Brick Industry Association).
114
First, of the thin-brick manufacturers, most will say upfront that they don't produce sustainable or green thin-bricks (including the Belden Brick
Co., Redland Brick Inc., etc.etc.). Many manufactures are using reduced-carbon techniques for full-bed bricks, but not for thin-bricks. Important
Note: The catch phrase'sustainable'may mean many things for brick, which I will attempt to outline in detail below. To simplify, however, a
low-carbon footprint for brick may be achieved most commonly by a low energy-intensive or reduced emissions firing, reduced energy in
transportation, or recycled additives in the clay admixture.
To start, thin-bricks - by nature - are already low-energy intensive bricks for the following reasons: 1.The clay masses in the firing are much
smaller, so much less fuel is required to fire the clay all the way through to a proper bisque - ranging from a 20% to a 70% fuel reduction
depending on the manufacturer and plant. NOTE: This advantage ismade null by manufacturers that fire full-bed bricks and then face-cut them
into thin-bricks. 2.The number of bricks in the kiln isgreater - more output per fire. 3.The transportation of thin-bricks saves purportedly on
fuel on account of the light-weight nature of the thin-brick (ie. ~17% fuel reduction). 4. The total sq. footage for on-site use (depending on
construction technique) isgenerally greater.
That said, there are some companies that purport to produce'sustainable bricks'with a cagey logic. To clarify, ALL brick is made with grog (~
15%), ground up material in the clay body which makes the brick more porous, allows for the release of moisture during firing, and enables
an even bisque fire. Most grog, however, ispre-consumer - not recycled material, and it isquite often regular, high-quality fired brick simply
ground up afterwards. So when manufacturers claim that their thin-brick isgreen, because they use grog, it's phooey nonsense.
According to the engineer, Gregg Borchelt, at the Brick Industry Association (and a few other resources), the techniques below may be used to
make a'green brick' Unfortunately, to Gregg's knowledge, none of the plants that are using such techniques are also making thin-bricks - I have
followed up on this with quite afew manufactures and tend to agree with him (Boral, Marion, Endicott, etc). For this reason, I have come to the
conclusion - though I still will look at some calcs - that for thin-bricks, some of the most significant energy reductions involve the fuel source
for firing, on-site manufacture (areduced distance from the point of extraction to the point of manufacture), as well as local plant use (reduced
distance from the point of manufacture to the location of final use, MIT).
"Green Brick"techniques:
1.1n terms of industrial re-use, gravel mining involves a stage in which the fine particles (sands, soils) are washed from the gravel. These fines
may be reused to supplement the brick clay body.
2.Hardwood sawdust may be added. This burns out during firing, leaving a lightweight brick that consumes less energy in firing and
transportation, while using waste sawdust from mills.
3.Similarly, tailings from mining operations may be used - though, I have now learned from James Kolodziey that his tests have shown that fly
ash in fired clay bricks makes unacceptably brittle bricks, whereas high performance industrial starches are very effective for good clay bodies.
4.Brick manufacturers may also use culled bricks (broken/ deformed/ etc. reject bricks) to regrind into new clay bodies. (Aside: I have read
elsewhere that this material may in certain circumstances have a pozzolana effect for mortar reuse, but I haven't verified this.)
115
5.Manufactures may be even more frugal and use other miscellaneous recycled ceramic items such as ceramic bathtubs (ie.Green Leaf Brick,
SC).
6.Coal or natural gas is mostly used to fire brick. The most significant contribution to the illusive sustainable brick may very well be those
manufacturers, that fire their kilns with methane from waste control facilities (ie.Boral, Terre Haute, IN- landfill gas and mining overburden).
This isa more carbon neutral and'free'energy resource the EPA considers to be renewable, though it israre on account of the upfront costs of
piping for such a manufacturing plant.
Note for future: The BIA isworking now on a 3rd party certification program in conjunction with The National Brick Resource Center at Clemson
University, in prelim stages but to be written up soon in Architectural Record. This would enable users to seek out (and rely upon) the material
and process specifications that different manufacturers (and individual plants from each manufacturer) are using in their brick production.
There are arguments, however, that an $8000 upfront cost, significant annual fees, and total transparency of unpatented clay technology isnot
very good for small businesses.
Other notes and assumptions: Most thin-bricks are meant for use as veneer (aka'veneerial disease' according to Santiago Huerta), and thinbricks are not the same as structural clay tiles. There are only afew thin-brick types that distributers will vouch for in terms of strength, longevity
and weather resistance, particularly in freeze-thaw climates such as Boston: ASTM C-1 088 thin-brick, grade exterior (ie.the Tru-Brix system). I
have assumed, however, since I believe that the MIT vault will be standing for a relatively short period and the Cooper Hewitt vault isindoors,
that astandard thin-brick is more than acceptable. John, please verify.
Present Options:
1.Gary Davis at Endicott Clay Products Inc. in Nebraska has provisionally offered us a donation of our requested brick amount (preliminary spec
at <1000 bricks, but exact amountTBD by our final calculations - I will submit separate notes on this later). From different accounts, I have heard
that Endicott has high quality brick, but does not recycle material. From Endicott's account, what they are offering is'sustainable' thin-brick
with the following qualities: 14-15% PRE-consumer waste (meaning regular grog), LEED pts, a 1-5 mi. distance from extraction to plant, and the
various sustainable qualities that all thin-brick makers may claim.
Note that Nebraska isa long way to ship. The greatest green benefit from the Endicott source is- above and beyond the typical industry thinbrick - a higher likelihood that their brick grog utilizes culled or reject bricks, and that their manufacture ison-site. This isnot in my opinion an
excellent'green'option.
http://www.Endicott.com
2.Lincoln Andrews at Stiles & Hart Brick Co. in Bridgewater, MA has offered us a donation of one block (-1000 bricks). This manufacturer, who
is supplying the dorm restoration at the corner of Mass Ave., has an on-site plant in Bridgewater. Lincoln is no'green-guru'- his bricks come
116
with no big green label and he has expressed understandable distaste for the double-speak of'green brick' manufacturers (as outlined above).
His kilns utilize coal - clearly not a green fuel resource. However, his apparent knowledge of efficiency in firing and other practical aspects of
sustainability was impressive to me, and despite his initial disinterest in donating, he considered that he may learn more about manufacturing
alternatives from our pragmatic study. The benefits of on-site production and local distribution (only ~25 miles from Cambridge) are undeniable.
There isone green option with Stiles & Hart. John - I will especially need you to advise on this. S&H produce a type of unfired thin-brick: kilndried by heat-exchange from their firing kilns, but NOT fired brick. This islike an adobe thin-brick, according to Lincoln, with a high compressive
strength and a low modulus. It may break more readily during installation, and he has even said that this may be more of a pain then its worth.
But it isclearly an option worth investigating - and I am not in a position to know whether or not this could be acceptable.
http://www.StilesandHart.com
3.This just in - this green brick isthe real deal! The chances that this company could supply a thin-brick for us in time for the MIT exhibition is
next to impossible - short of some miracle - but it could definitely be possible to work with them for the Cooper-Hewitt exhibition.
James Kolodziey, the president of Green Leaf Brick in Charlotte, NC, supplies all of the raw clay material for the bricks they make, and is in
partnership with CharlesTaylor and Taylor Brick Co., who does all their firing. A2007 start-up, Green Leaf only started testing their post-consumer
ceramic waste in Taylor's thin-brick production about 8 months ago, so they are by no stretch engaging in industrial scale production.
Green Leaf's bricks are 100% recycled material, a whopping 31% post consumer recycled material - most of which, according to James, is
actually raw sewage - yes, the shit-brick! They have redirected many a waste stream, utilizing among other things, recycled glass, pure silica
from dust collection and air filter receptacles, designated recycle receptacles from large scale ceramic operations, and other perfectly good
ceramic material directed towards landfills. Their plastic clay body comes from sand-mining operations, which pull out embedded deposits of
clay material (this isnormally high pressure washed, discarded, or replaced back into mining pits) - there isan incredible amount of embodied
energy in the mining of this excellent clay byproduct. Additionally, his clay body production isembellished with some very serious technology
he has developed from carboxy-methyl-cornstarch research in the oil-gas industry, making a stronger ceramic brick with a higher yield and an
ASTM C216 severe weather rating. Their clay engineering isquite remarkable, and is extremely fastidious: As James said, "It only takes one tin
can to kill a composition."
Their partner in manufacturing, Taylor Clay, isone of the first manufacturers utilizing an emissions scrub (only 18% of manufacturing operations
use this) - alimestone scrubber or kiln exhaust control to remove hydrogen fluoride (EPA synthetic minor, as opposed toTitleV emissions). Their
fuel source isa byproduct of refined petroleum, petroleum coat, a material with a higher BTU than natural gas, which necessitates advanced air
stream techn. for blending and avery effective air scrubber for emissions.
http://www.GreenLeafBrick.com
117
7-DAY MORTAR COMPRESSION TESTING
for the Free Form Vault -Triennial 09 Project Number 0981102A
April 2, 2010
MIT Masonry Research Group
Lab Report: Lara Davis
Material Testing Laboratory, MIT Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Laboratory Technician: Stephen Rudolph
INTRODUCTION:
The objective of these laboratory tests isto verify the material strength of Hydrocal *White Gypsum Cement, the fast-setting, high-compressive
strength plaster mortar used by the MIT Masonry Research Group for the Free Form Vault, which was built at the Cooper-Hewitt during the week
of March 22 - 26, 2010. In comparing our test values to the material specifications of Hydrocal, and drawing also on our previous analysis of the
compressive stress within the vault, the goal of the analysis isto verify that the compressive strength of the material greatly exceeds the actual
stresses in the vault.
REFERENCE TO ASTM STANDARDS:
Designation: C39/C39M - 09a
Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
Designation: C472 - 99 (Reapproved 2009)
Standard Test Methods for Physical Testing of Gypsum, Gypsum Plasters and Gypsum Concrete
STATEMENT OF TESTING PROCEDURE:
The testing procedures for 2 inch diameter cylindrical plaster specimens, samples of cured USG Hydrocal White gypsum cement, have followed
the procedures referred to by ASTM C39/C39M - 09a and ASTM C472 - 99 (Reapproved 2009). The date of test was scheduled for a 7-day break
of the samples, to insure that the samples were fully cured. The samples were released from the molds 5 days before testing to insure that all
free-water in the samples had been released.
118
The primary difference between the tests which must be performed for these samples and the ASTM designation C472 - 99 (Standard Test
Methods for Physical Testing of Gypsum, Gypsum Plasters and Gypsum Concrete), isthat the tested samples are cylindrical specimens and not
cube specimens as referred to by this standard. With respect to the method of compressive testing for cylindrical samples, ASTM C39/C39M 09a will outline procedure. All additional procedures with respect to the testing of plaster material will be covered by C472 - 99 (Reapproved
2009).
The testing procedure for plaster cylinders differ from that of concrete cylinders primarily in the preparation of the testing surfaces of the
cylinders. As plaster cannot be capped by the same methods as concrete cylinders, the most effective method for preparing testing surfaces
isto level the upper and lower bounds of the samples with a belt sander. The samples were carefully checked to insure that the surfaces were
within a0.5 degree tolerance from perpendicularity (approximately equivalent to 1mm in 100mm [0.12 in.in 12 in.]), as specified by ASTM C39/
C39M - 09a (Section 6.2, page 4).
Dates of Sampling: 3/23/2010, 3/24/2010, 3/25/2010, 3/26/2010
Date of Testing: 4/2/2010
119
DATA:
Sample
(date!time)
Area Load
Mean Height Mean
(in)
Diameter (inA2) (lbs)
Notes
Peak stress
a = Force/ Area
(psi)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
120
03/23/10
18:00
03/24/10
10:00
03/24/10
11:00
03/24/10
12:00
03/24/10
14:00
03/24/10
15:00
03/24/10
16:00
03/25/10
10:00
03/25/10
11:00
03/25/10
12:00
03/25/10
14:00
03/25/10
15:00
03/25/10
16:00
03/26/10
10:00
03/26/10
11:00
03/26/10
14:00
03/26/10
15:00
3.95
2.02
3.19
9208.1
3.92
2.01
3.19
10164.2 3190.8
3.96
2.02
3.19
9081.65
2848.9
3.95
2.01
3.18
10972.9
3448.1
3.93
2.01
3.17
9310.8
2934.5
3.93
2.02
3.19
10485.3 3288.8
3.93
2.02
3.19
8791.9
3.92
2.01
3.18
3.98
2.02
3.21
9172.6
2884.4
i
11135.7 3469.7
3.95
2.01
3.17
8424.9
2656.8
Sub-surface air inclusions.
3.94
2.01
3.17
7137.6
2253.1
Significant sub-surface air inclusions, low peak stress.
NOT INCLUDED IN MEAN PEAK STRESS.
3.96
2.01
3.18
2792.6
3.96
2.01
3.18
8886.9
1
8629.1
3.92
2.01
3.18
11156.9 3513.4
3.94
2.01
3.17
9367.8
2954.6
3.97
2.01
3.18
9534.6
2996.6
3.95
2.01
3.18
8975.2
2822.3
Mean Value:
3.94
2.01
3.18
9581.1
3010.2
2888.6
Minor surface defects
Moderate surface defects
Moderate surface defects
2755.7
2717.8
RESULTS:
Lowest peak stress = 2,253 psi
Highest peak stress = 3,513 psi
Mean peak stress value = 3,010 psi
One sample with very poor mortar distribution was discarded from the final mean value. Significant sub-surface air bubble inclusions were
present at the failure crack locations, and this sample yielded a relatively low peak stress value of 2,253 psi.
ANALYSIS:
The material specifications for Hydrocal White indicate that a 1-hour compressive strength should reach 1000 psi, and that the dry compressive
strength should reach 5,000 psi (for 45 parts water/ 100 parts plaster). Please reference: Hydrocal Brand White Gypsum Cement, Product
Data. The results of our testing showed that the mortar did not achieve the strength predicted by the manufacturer, yielding a lower mean
compressive value of 3,010 psi. We believe this isdue to 1) Higher water content in the mix, and 2) Insufficient curing. Seven days were allowed
for the samples to cure before testing. The samples were removed from the molds four days before testing to allow them to reach their dry
compressive strength. It is reasonable to predict, however, that a 14-day break would have resulted in peak stresses closer to the material
specifications of USG Hydrocal White gypsum cement.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our structural calculations show that the maximum compressive stress in the Free Form Vault is 11 psi (analyzed for a 1-foot strip of the vault,
with a brick thickness of 1.5 inches). Please reference:"Graphic Equilibrium Analysis"and "Structural Analysis for Vault 201 "(submitted to Silman
Associates). The average compressive strength of the brick isapproximately 16,000 pounds per square inch. The average compressive strength
of Hydrocal mortar was tested to be approximately 3,010 pounds per square inch. Therefore, the strength of the brick and mortar combined can
conservatively be assumed to be 3,010 pounds per square inch, due to mortar as the weaker material. For the applied compressive stress of 11
pounds per square inch, the safety factor against crushing isover 250, and therefore the compressive strength of the vault isat least 250 times
stronger than its internal stresses.
Though our tested compressive values of Hydrocal are lower than the material strength indicated by the manufacturer - on account of higher
water content in the mix and insufficient curing - the results nevertheless demonstrate the existence of significant safety factors, such that
crushing will not occur in the vault. The results of our material tests show that the compressive strength of the mortar isstill more than 250
times greater than the maximum calculated stress in the vault, and that the vault will not fail due to weakness of the mortar.
E-1 5 VAULT
MIT
Masonry Research
Group
LaraK.Davis
The 4-Dimensional Masonry Construction
MIT MArch Thesis Exhibition
On-Campus Installation Proposal
Index
Al Construction and Safety Protocol
Designer & Builder
A 1.1Introduction, Construction Process Overview
A 1.2 Safety Precautions and Protection Measures, Miscellaneous Requirements and Measures
A 1.3 Notes on Loads and Materials, Student Experience
Lara K.Davis, MITMasters of Architecture Candidate 2010
A2 Preliminary Design Drawings
Advisors
A2.1 Perspective
A22 Plan, Sections, Elevations
A2.3 Details
A2.4 Site Plan
John Ochsendorf, Associate Professor ofCivil Engineering &Architecture, MIT
Nader Tehrani, ProfessorofArchitecturalDesign, MIT
Mark Jarzombek, Professor of History,Theory and Criticism, MIT
MITDept. of Architecture
77 Massachusetts
Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
tel
646.662.5424
A3 Mortar Specifications
A 5.1 Plaster Testing Report, page 1and 2
A 5.2 Plaster Testing Report. page 3and 4
A 5.3 United States Gypsum Company MSDS for proposed hydrocal, page 1and 2
A 5.4 United States Gypsum Company MSDS for proposed hydrocal, page 3and 4
A 5.5 United States Gypsum Company MSDS for proposed hydrocal, page 5 and 6
A 5.6 United States Gypsum Company MSDS for proposed hydrocal, page 7and 8
A 5.7 United States Gypsum Company Hydrocal White Product Data sheet, page 9 and 10
4.22.10
submission
A4 Brick Specifications
A6.1 Grean Leaf Brick MSDS for proposed brick, page 1and 2
A6.2 Grean Leaf Brick MSDS for proposed brick, page 3and 4
A6.3 Grean Leaf Brick MSDS for proposed brick, page 5 and 6
A6.4 Photographs of samples of Grean Leaf Brick
INDEX
InSituConstructed
Masonry Vaut
04.22.10
122
MOT FACLDTUES PROPOSAL:
123
E-1 5 VAULT
MIT
Masonry ResearchGroup
LaraK. Davis
MITDept. of Architecture
77 Massachusetts
Ave.
CambridgeMA 02139
646.662.5424
tel
4.22.10submission
A 2.5
SitePlan
N
In SituConstructed
Masonry Vault
04.22.10
124
E-15 VAULT
MIT
Masonry Research
Group
LaraK.Davis
MITDept.of Architecture
77Massachusetts
Ave.
Cambridge, MA02139
tel
646.662.5424
0-
\\\
\\
\
submission
4.22.10
A2.2
Plan,Sections,Elevation
\ \\
InSituConstructed
Masonry Vault
04.22.10
125
E-1 5 VAULT
MIT
Masonry ResearchGroup
LaraK. Davis
MITDept. of Architecture
77 Massachusetts
Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
646.662.5424
tel
4.22.10submission
IA2.3
l1-8"
1
DETAIL OF PLYWOOD BEARING PAD
SCALE:1 1/2"= 1'-D"
2 - DIAGRAM OF PRIMARY CATENARY LINES
04.22.10
126
E-1 5 VAULT
MIT
Masonry ResearchGroup
Lara K. Davis
MITDept. of Architecture
77 Massachusetts
Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
tel
646.662.5424
4.22.10
submission
/
A 2.1
Perspective
1
PERSPECTIVE
NOTTO
SCALE
/
In SituConstructed
Masonry
Vault
0422.10
127
MARVIN E.GOODY STATEMENT:
128
I feel, rather humbly, that this proposal generously meets the criteria of selection for the Marvin E.Goody prize. Marvin Goody's innovative,
experimental work - including the House of the Future, which he developed while teaching alongside Buckminster Fuller at MIT - seemed to be
somehow balanced by the traditional building craftsmanship and preservation aspects of his design practice with John Clancy and Joan Goody.
I think that such architects prove that innovation is not merely blind forward-thinking, rather complex re-piecing of the best technologies
available to our industry, culled from a pool of speculative new technologies and a counterpart in established, empirically tested knowledge
bases and constructional logics. Contemporary architectural practice often provokes polarizing declarations - traditional technologies are
anachronistic, or experimental technologies are improbable or remote. Perhaps, as ayoung architect, my experience isinsufficient to well argue
the subtle areas of such distinctions; though I admit that I do not actually believe in the value of such totalizing declarations. I do, however,
feel that it is in my purview as a student to follow through in developing my past professional experience in construction with traditional
building materials and techniques, and to pursue the disciplinary research which engages this technological divide between past and future
construction-design methods.
I also feel that it is my responsibility to utilize all of the resources that I have available to me here at MIT, which extend both internationally
through scholarship and to our local context of Cambridge through practice. I think that I may best address the applicability of the Goodys'
vision to this project by referring to some of the local Cambridge industry overlap which was generated through one of the critical projects in
the development of this thesis - the first vault prototype built in September. When our group of young designers set out to build this vault, the
Boston-based branch of the International Masonry Institute sent over one of their masons of 40 years experience, to share knowledge sets, to
learn about this Catalan vaulting technique, and to himself climb the ladders to assist in building. Outreach to the local contracting community
resulted in the support of our project by representatives of the Local 40 Carpenters Union, local distributors, and other major contractors at MIT
construction sites, who critically enabled our project by providing us with post-consumer contractors'waste towards the construction of our
form-work. Most impressive was the experience of visiting the only remaining brick manufacturing plant in Massachusetts, the 4th generation
manufacturer Stiles & Hart, and the sense of mutual respect developed as I ogled their traditional beehive kilns, while they stared with some
perplexity at images of our experimental vault form. All of these industry workers participated fundamentally in enabling this vault - with
a sense of pride and value in the exchange. They reminded me of why I came here, and of my first experience of MIT - driving a masonry
contractor's truck, well laden with palettes of bricks, past jay-walking students and the dome of 77 Mass Ave. One may nod to the building
industry for their role in facilitating academic research projects such as these, but it isquite honestly the building industry to which I owe my
being here in the first place.
130
GOODY RESEARCH PROPOSAL:
This grant would make possible the construction of an innovative structural masonry prototype and the development of my knowledge
base in the building of extremely thin-shell vaults. The novelty in this research is that it proposes to utilize both experimental structural
engineering software and traditional masonry construction technologies - together - towards the goal of innovative design, engineering and
construction. These computational technologies have enabled structural form-generation which radically departs from the typical constraints
of traditional masonry construction; however, what I have discovered - through several ongoing masonry research projects with MIT Professor
John Ochsendorf and ETH Professor Philippe Block - is that these technologies still deeply rely on traditional, constructional practices and
methods to realize them. Once the structural analysis enabled by these design tools is grounded in the techniques and the constraints of
masonry constructibility, it will allow us to build within a new paradigm of constructible vaults, innovative parallels of which may be seen inthe
work of Eladio Dieste and Rafael Guastavino.
This research will manifest in the construction of a full scale structural masonry vault prototype, scheduled to be built in the MIT N51 courtyard
in conjunction with my thesis presentation in early May 2010. This vault will be the last in a series of vault prototypes, one of which will
be presented in the public context of the Cooper Hewitt's International Design Triennial in May (built in March). The first prototype, already
completed this past September through support from the MIT Museum Students' Night program, was a total success in that - through its
complete collapse - we thoroughly educated ourselves about many of the critical limits involved in such constructions. The construction of
these earlier prototypes will have enabled my design and construction team, a collection of 7 MArch students, to fully develop the material
research, construction sequencing design and the masonry construction techniques, which will critically inform my Spring thesis vault.
Beyond the explicit aim of this project to present contemporary masonry innovation at MIT to the greater public, the research in these
construction methods is integral to my design thesis, "Phase Change Morphology: 4 Dimensional Construction for Disaster Response" The
technical goal of the thesis is to develop an innovative system of translational, construction-design drawing, which - as previously stated
- will link construction methods in traditional masonry craftsmanship with methods in contemporary computational design. This will rely
on scholarship of historical precedents of masonry 'design drawing'that suggest ways in which design drawings transmitted and translated
information between Islamic mathematicians, architects, master masons and masonry craftsmen. This study has been pursued under the
supervision of GUlru Necipoglu of Harvard History of Art &Architecture, and will culminate in research travel that isscheduled for early January.
The thesis will then investigate design drawing as a new type of sequenced construction drawing, a theory to be tested by translating it, as
praxis, into a built masonry prototype. By reinserting concerns of constructibility - material, tectonic and sequencing - into the contemporary
design drawing, the desired impact isthe establishment of a more mutualistic relationship between the design, engineering and construction
sectors of our discipline.
131
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
STRUCTURAL MASONRY:
Allen, Edward, and Wactaw Zalewski, Form and Forces: Designing Efficient, Expressive Structures. John Wiley &Sons, Hoboken, 2010.
Allen, Edward and Waclaw Zalewski, Shaping Structures: Statics. John Wiley &Sons, Inc., New York, 1998.
Anderson, Stanford, Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2004.
Artigas, Isabel, Gaudi: Completed Works, 1852 -1900. Evergreen Press, K61n, Germany, 2007.
Block, Philippe, Thrust Network Analysis: Exploring Three-dimensional Equilibrium, MIT Phd dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, 2009.
Burry, Mark, Expiatory Church of the Sagrada Famflia: Antoni Gaudi. Phaidon Press Limited, London, 1993.
Ed. Burry, Mark, Gaudi Unseen: Completing the Sagrada Familia, jovis Verlag, GmbH, Berlin, 2007.
Davis, Lara, "Lightweight Principles in Masonry Design &Construction"' 2007.
Dold-Samplonius, Vvonne, ed. Jan P.Hogendijk and I.Sabra Abdelhamid, "Calculating Surface Areas and Volumes in Islamic Architecture",
The Enterprise of Science in Islam. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2003.
Gulli, Riccardo, La costruzione coesiva: L'opera dei Guastavino nell'America di fine Ottocento, Marsilio Editori s.p.a., Venezia, 2006.
Fitchen, John, The Construction of Gothic Cathedrals: AStudy of Medieval Vault Erection. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1961.
Heyman, Jacques, The Stone Skelaton: Structural Engineering of Masonry Architecture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
Ed. Lopez, Daniel, The Function of Form: Farshid Moussavi. Actar and the Harvard University GSD, New York, 2009.
Maurer, Bertram. Karl Culmann und die graphische Statik: Anhang mit umfangreichen Culmann-Texten. Bericht (Universitit Stuttgart. Institut
ftr Baustatik); Nr. 26. Berlin :Verlag fOr Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft und derTechnik, 1998.
Ne ipoglu, GOIru and Mohammad al-Asad, The Topkapi Scroll: Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture. Getty Publications, Santa
Monica, CA,1 995.
Otto, Frei, Der Bogen, Arcus, Universitat Stuttgart, Institut fOr internationale Architektur-Dokumentation GmbH, Monchen, 1984.
Otto, Frei et. al, IL35: Alte Baumeister, Instit~t fur leichte Flaschentragwerk (IL), Universitat Stuttgart, E.Kurz &Co., Stuttgart, 1994.
Parks, Janet, and Alan G.Neumann, The Old World Builds the New: The Guastavino Company and the Technology of the Catalan Vault,
1885 - 1962. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, New York, 1996.
Philippe Block, Matt DeJong, John Ochsendorf, "As Hangs the Flexible Line: Equilibrium of Masonry Arches" Nexus Network Journal 8, No. 2,
(2006) 13-24.
Ramage, Michael, Catalan Vaulting in Advanced Material: New Approaches to Contemporary Compressive Form. MIT Master's Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2006.
Tarrag6, Salvador, Guastavino Co.: Catalogue of Works in Catalonia and America (1885 - 1962), Collegi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya. Ingoprint
S.A., Barcelona, 2002.
132
GEOMETRY &THE 4th DIMENSION:
Abas, Syed Jan, and Amer Shaker Salman, Symmetries of Islamic Geometrical Patterns, World Scientific Publishing Co., London, 1995.
Abbott, Edwin A., Flatland: ARomance of Many Dimensions, London, 1884.
Bragdon, Claude, Architecture and Democracy, Alfred A.Knopf, New York, 1918.
Bragdon, Claude, Four Dimensional Vistas. Alfred A.Knopf, New York, 1916.
Bragdon, Claude, The New Image. Alfred A.Knopf, New York, 1928.
Cohen, Preston Scott, Contested Symmetries and Other Predicaments in Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2001.
Davis, Lara, "Constructions of the 4th Dimension: Representing Mystical and Revolutionary Subjectivity" 2010.
Davis, Lara, "Morphology as Dynamic Symmetry" 2008.
Ed. El-Khoury, Rodolphe and Oscar Riera Ojeda, Office dA, Rockport Publishers, Inc., Gloucester, MA, 2000.
El-Said, Issam, Islamic Art and Architecture: The System of Geometric Design. Garnet Publishing Limited, 1993.
Evans, Robin, The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1995.
Evans, Robin, Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays. Janet Evans and Architectural Association, London, 1997.
Fano, Robert M., Lan Jen Chu, and Richard B.Adler, Electromagnetic Fields, Energy, and Forces. John Wiley &Sons, Inc., New York, 1960.
Henderson, Linda, The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983.
Hinton, C.H., Scientific Romances. Swan Sonnenschein, Lowrey &Co., London, 1886.
Kappraff, Jay, Connections: The Geometric Bridge Between Art &Science. World Scientific, New Jersey, 2001.
Kepes, Gyorgy, Language of Vision. Paul Theobald and Co., Chicago, 1944.
McQuaid, Matilda, Shigeru Ban. Phaidon Press Limited, London, 2003.
Moholy-Nagy, Lazslo, The New Vision: From Material to Architecture. Wittenborn, Shultz, New York, 1947.
Oppenheimer, Andrea and Timothy Hursley, Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and An Architecture of Decency. Princeton Architectural Press,
New York, 2002.
Ouspenski, RD., "The 4th Dimension" ANew Model of the Universe, Alfred A.Knopf, New York, 1967.
Ouspenski, RD., Tertium Organum: AKey to the Enigmas of the World. Alfred A.Knopf, New York, 1920.
Vogt-Goknil, Ulya, Living Architecture: Ottoman. Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1966.
133
ILLUSTRATION CREDITS:
All illustrations by the author unless noted below. Listed by section and page number (left to right):
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
134
Pine's Calyx, Docum entation Courtesy of M ichael Ram age. ............................................................................................................
Pine's Calyx, Docum entation Courtesy of Michael Ram age. ............................................................................................................
Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art, Stanford Anderson, Construction with quick-setting plaster, p. 203. ..........................
Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art, Stanford Anderson, Vault supported load 4 hours after construction, p. 203. .............................
Pine's Calyx, Docum entation Courtesy of M ichael Ram age. .............................................................................................................
12
12
12
12
12
2.1.1 The Projective Cast, Robin Evans, Peterborough Cathedral, retrochoir, p. 233.
...................
........
......
................
2.1.2 Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art, Stanford Anderson, Cadyl Horizonal Silo, Young, 1976-78, Stanford Anderson, p. ..............
2.1.3 The Old World Builds the New, "First Church of Christ Scientist: Staircase under construction, New York, NY, 1903" p.30. ..........................
2.1.4 The Old World Builds the New, "Quackenbush Building: Section of Stairwell, Paterson, NJ, July 30, 1902" p. 59. ..
.....
... ..............
2.1.5 The Old World Builds the New, "St. Joseph's Seminary: Stairs under Construction,1 892",p. 51.
............................
.........
2.1.6 Felix Candela: Engineer, Builder, Structural Artist, David Billington, San Felipe de Jesus Church, Cuernavaca, Mexico. .....................
2.1.7 Felix Candela: Engineer, Builder, Structural Artist, David Billington, San Felipe de Jesus Church, Cuernavaca, Mexico. ....................
2.1.8 Felix Candela: Engineer, Builder, Structural Artist, David Billington, San Felipe de Jesus Church, Cuernavaca, Mexico.
....................
2.1.9 Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art, Stanford Anderson, Cftricos Caputto Fruit Packing Plant, Salto, 1986-87, p.83. ....
............
2.1.10 Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art, Stanford Anderson, Port Warehouse, Montevideo, 1977-79, p. 134. ..............................
2.1.11 Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art, Stanford Anderson, Port Warehouse, Montevideo, 1977-79, p. 131. ........
.....................
2.1.12 Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art, Stanford Anderson, Formwork design, Port Warehouse, Montevideo, 1977-79, p. 130. ............
2.1.13 Anto ni Gaud , Col6 nia G0ell, Barcelona. ....................................................................................................................................
2.1.14 IL 34, Frei Otto et al., Antoni Gaudi, Hanging model, Col6nia Guell, Barcelona, p. 115. .......................................................................
2.1.15 IL 34, Frei Otto et al., Antoni Gaudf, Crypt, Col6nia Guell, Barcelona, p. 184. .....................................................................................
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
2.2.1 Green Leaf Brick, Photos Courtesy of Jam es Kolodziey. ...................................................................................................................
2.2.2 Green Leaf Brick, Photos Courtesy of Jam es Kolodziey. ...................................................................................................................
2.2.3 Green Leaf Brick, Photos Courtesy of Jam es Kolodziey. ...................................................................................................................
2.2.4 Ta ra Do n o van , Untitled . .............................................................................................................................................................
2.2 .5 Ta ra Do n ova n , Un titled . .............................................................................................................................................................
2.2.6 Shigeru Ban, ed. M atilda M cQ uaid, Paper tubes, p. 13. ...................................................................................................................
2.2.7 Shigeru Ban, ed. Matilda McQuaid, Japan Pavilion, Expo 2000, Hannover, Germany, 2000, p. 65. ......................
..................
2.2.8 Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and An Architecture of Decency, Andrea Oppenheimer and Timothy Hursley, p. 101. ......
..............
2.2.9 Photo Courtesy of Sara Riley, The Copicut Cleanup, Fall River Watershed, 2009. ................................
...............
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.1.7
Form and Forces: Designing Efficient, Expressive Structures, Diagram redrawn from John Ochsendorf, Structural limits in corbelling. ........
...................................
Flicker photograph, Istefan TM, Dresden Synagogue, Wandel Hoefer Lorch + Hirsch architects.
Gaudi: Completed Works, Isabel Artigas, Columns, Teresian School, Antoni Gaudi, p. 190. ......................................
Gra m azio + Ko h le r.. .................................................................................................................................................................
Gra m azio + Ko h le r.. .................................................................................................................................................................
Office dA, ed. El-Khoury and Ojeda, Casa la Roca, Caracas, Venezuela, p. 99. .................................................
Gra m azio + Ko h le r.. .................................................................................................................................................................
...........
...........
3.2.1 Living Architecture: Ottoman, Ulya Vogt-Gbknil, Yeschil Mausoleum and Mosque, Stalactite dome, Bursa, p.71. .
...............................................
3.2.2 The Topkapi Scroll, Guiru Ne ipoglu, Projection from Mucarnas plan to section.
3.2.3 The Topkapi Scroll, Gu ru Neeipoglu. Plan of M ucarnas. ................................................................................................................
3.2.4 Gaudi Unseen: Completing the Sagrada Familia, Mark Burry, Drawing of hyperboloid constructions, Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, p. 104.
3.2.5 Gaudf Unseen: Completing the Sagrada Famflia, Mark Burry, Drawing of hyperboloid constructions, Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, p. 104.
3.2.6 Gaudi Unseen: Completing the Sagrada Familia, Mark Burry, Drawing of hyperboloid constructions, Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, p. 104.
3.2.7 Gaudf Unseen: Completing the Sagrada Famflia, Mark Burry, Nave detail, Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, p.52. .............................
.....................
3.2.8 Gauds Unseen: Completing the Sagrada Famflia, Mark Burry, Nave detail, Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, p.52. ..............
3.2.9 Gaudi Unseen: Completing the Sagrada Familia, Mark Burry, Fragment of vaulted ceiling hyperboloid, Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, p.49. ...
.............
......
3.2.10 The Projective Cast, Robin Evans, Redrawn trait for the trompe at Anet, Premier Tome, Philibert Delorme, p. 185. .
5.1 Photo Courtesy of the Cooper-Hewitt, Vault 201, The MIT Masonry Research Group. ...............................
................
6.1 Symmetries of Islamic Geometrical Patterns, Syed Jan Abas, Pattern symmetry translations diagram, Redrawn, p.66. ....................
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
47
56
135
Download